[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal

Paul Vixie vixie at isc.org
Tue Aug 19 20:42:54 EDT 2008

> From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> ...
> What I find odious about the LRSA is that the legacy addresses revert
> to ARIN upon intentional termination of the contract instead of
> reverting to the status-quo control by the legacy registrant.

i think that differential rights for legacy holders presumes two things
that most people would argue just as strongly about, and as such, the
presumption isn't a no-brainer.  thing 1: that legacy addresses are
property and that a legacy holder owns them in perpetuity and has rights of
use and/or disposal/sale that supercede the interests of the larger
community.  thing 2: that non-legacy holder are disadvantaged since they
received fewer rights with their allocations than legacy holders did.

i do personally hold either the "thing 1" or the "thing 2" view, and so to
me, uniqueness against competing allocations or merely against competing
utilization (perhaps by stronger or larger parties elsewhere in the world)
is a community-level right -- we all have it because the community agrees
that we all have it.  i don't distinguish in my mind between the rights i
have to legacy space vs. non-legacy space, because all of those rights are
whatever the community agrees to protect, and while various individuals have
begged differential relief in this area, i've seen no consensus for it.

but to close the loop on what i mean by "the community", let's continue:

> The LRSA should be structured so that it serves as a strong check on
> ARIN's -future- actions with repspect to the legacy registrations.  It
> doesn't make the grade. A properly motivated ARIN board would have
> sufficient legal wiggle room to do just about anything they wanted to the
> legacy registrants with no recourse on the registrants part, exactly as
> is the case for modern end-user registrants.  Give the legacy registrant
> the power to terminate the contract and the possibility of adverse action
> by ARIN can never become a serious threat.

let me start by arguing the opposite.  if you think that address holders are
a necessary check+balance on ARIN misbehaviour, then you should be arguing
that ALL address holders must have this role, legacy and non-legacy alike.

let me finish by saying that ARIN's policies are what the community makes.
there's no way for the board or AC or staff, or any national government, to
ram policies down the community's throat, or withhold approval or execution
of policies that the community has created.  if LRSA is wrong, then submit
a policy process to fix it.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list