[arin-ppml] Whois Integrity Policy Proposal
ralph at cancerboard.ab.ca
Fri Aug 22 16:19:16 EDT 2008
That's like saying that anyone born before the patriot act came into place is exempt. If the rules change they should change for everyone.
I say that as a legacy holder.
I don't have an issue with the policy per say but maybe the approach should be to push ipv6 harder. Implement any policies we need for ipv6 and everyone will have to be on board when it takes on a life of their own. That would of course imply that legacy holders do not have any special rights carried over to ipv6; I may have missed the discussions on that; but I hope they would not.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Davey, George
Sent: August 22, 2008 12:33 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Whois Integrity Policy Proposal
Legacy agreements make no mention of DNS or email requirements. Legacy holders are under no obligation to please ARIN.
This would be yet another attempt to force people in legacy agreements to sign an updated agreement and they should not be bullied into doing so.
The Hobbs Act of 1951 addressed this type of unfair pressure to force people to change contractual rights out of fear of losing intangible properties acquired under an allocation contract.
I feel firm that any attempt to bully legacy holders to sign anything is both unlawful and unnecessary. It is especially unnecessary harassment.
What troubles me the most is the ease at which people will form a Lynch mob to strip others of rights they cannot share because they were not there at the time that particular right was established. Most of the victims are naïve or have not had proper legal counsel advising them of their contractual rights. The legacy agreements did not have a clause giving ANY governing body the right to discuss or pressure them into changing their contract to please ARIN, ICANN, or IANA. In my opinion it is a democratic socialist movement to make everyone the same by force of fear of losing the space fairly allocated to them in the legacy time.
There are many ways each of us can make the Internet a better place, forcing people to sign contracts by force of fear is not one of them.
I do not support this policy at this time because I think it clearly has a hidden agenda and will not stop spammers or even slow them down.
George Davey, B.S. MCSE
3200 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50312
George.Davey at dmu.edu
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Paul Morrison
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:27 PM
To: Dale W. Carder
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LRSA concerns (Re: Policy Proposal: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal)
On 8/22/2008 8:21 AM, Dale W. Carder wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
I proposed then that a good first step to get legacy holders into the
"tent" would be a milder contract that didn't put their "rights"
(whatever they may be now or determined in the future) on the line.
I agree with this approach.
I agree as well. It's also justifiable in terms of paying a registrar for domain and reverse DNS. I have no problem paying $10 a year or whatever to godaddy for a dot com registration,
so I have no opposition to paying to an in-addr.arpa registrar, who could provide whois and registrar services at a competitive rate.
Just as dot com registration was once free and was converted to pay as you go, so can in-addr.arpa for legacy registrants. Perhaps this can side-step some of the opposition to legacy changes.
Most of this could leverage existing registrar, domain registration and whois infrastructure. So legacy holders can pay their way for the registration infrastructure, while any questions of "ownership" or legitimacy can be sorted out separately, or they can simply whither on the vine with IPv6 approaching.
If we all think that whois needs to be updated and this can't be
done without a contract, could a contract specific to whois
maintenance be written as Jeff outlined without the things that
legacy holders are clearly concerned about in the current LRSA?
LRSA-lite could be a lot easier for legacy holders to swallow.
As v4 runout gets closer, I worry about increased hijacking.
The value of database maintenance will then be clear to everyone.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2167 bytes
More information about the ARIN-PPML