[arin-ppml] LRSA concerns (Re: Policy Proposal: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal)

Richard Wooten rhw2 at rhwsun.wooten.net
Fri Aug 22 16:57:38 EDT 2008


Jeff,

Thanks, you are the only one that has made any sense about the LRSA.
I've always said, I would pay my fare share, just give me a way to do it.


Richard Wooten
Network Manager
Richard & Associates


Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:

>I've attached a message a sent to the ppml list back last
>October. From what I can tell, no one ever responded publicly to it (I
>did receive a private reply).
>
>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.
>
>From what I have read and seen, one of the more egregious clauses in
>the LRSA is the one where you lose your address space when the
>contract terminates, for whatever reason. There are other problems as
>well, but I won't go into detail here (others have, I don't need to
>repeat them!).
>
>Perhaps a more middle ground between the current LRSA and my proposal
>of no discussion of address blocks would be something that would:
>
>o Bind the registrant to not sell or transfer their address blocks
>  outside of an ARIN sanctioned process (this is one of the elephants
>  in the room!).
>
>o Bind ARIN to not revoke legacy addresses (which the LRSA does
>  today).
>
>o Arrange for the registrant to pay their fair share of ARIN costs
>  (the LRSA does this).
>
>o Isn't terminated based on issues that have nothing to do with
>  address assignment (like claimed violations of law, more on this
>  later).
>
>o Is in some way non-revocable. What I mean here is that the
>  registrant shouldn't be able to decide to void the agreement and
>  walk away because they want to do something prohibited by the
>  contract (like sell address space) *and* ARIN shouldn't be able to
>  revoke a legacy address by wiggling out of the agreement. The
>  registrant should feel secure in their continued use of address
>  space and ARIN should feel secure in that the registrant will abide
>  by the agreement. I'm not enough of a lawyer (heck, I am not even a
>  lawyer at all) to come up with the language.
>
>I believe the key here is that the legacy registrant needs to be
>secure in their continued use of "their" address space. The current
>LRSA falls short on this score.
>
>So, how do we move forward on this score? Do I hire an attorney and
>develop a replacement LRSA. Is there a way to get the ARIN Board to
>consider changes to the LRSA without doing so (I would propose wording
>changes myself, but then I am not a competent attorney). I'm
>interested in guidance here.
>
>So about claimed violations of law... (feel free to stop reading now
>if you are not interested in this aspect of things).
>
>The problem with terminating the agreement on violations of law is
>that sometimes the law is wrong and the way to demonstrate it is to
>violate it and go to court.
>
>A number of years ago MIT was actually convicted of violating the
>Sherman Anti-Trust Act by participating in what was called the Overlap
>Group. The Overlap Group was a group of college financial aid
>administrators who arranged for students who applied to their colleges
>(thus they "overlapped") to receive a similar aid package from each
>school that they applied to (from the group). This was a benefit to
>society because it permitted students to select a school based on
>academics rather then the best aid package. It also permitted limited
>donations (where the financial aid sometimes comes from) to be
>stretched over a larger number of students. In some cases this was
>necessary for schools to offer "need blind admissions."
>
>The government viewed this as illegal price fixing and went to
>prosecute the member schools. All but one negotiated a consent
>decree. MIT was the one that wouldn't. We stood on principal and went
>to court. We were convicted. We appealed and the appellate court threw
>out the conviction and remanded the lower court to try again. At that
>point the government punted.
>
>My point: When we were convicted, it would have really been unpleasant
>to then loose our address block. Frankly what the heck does our
>address allocation have to do with this? Nothing, so it shouldn't be
>part of the equation.
>
>Sorry for the length.
>
>                        -Jeff
>
>On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 03:25:27PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>  
>
>>Perhaps asking for the LRSA to also be about governance pushes the
>>legacy registrants further than they're currently willing to go.
>>    
>>
>
>--
>========================================================================
>Jeffrey I. Schiller
>MIT Network Manager
>Information Services and Technology
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>77 Massachusetts Avenue  Room W92-190
>Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
>617.253.0161 - Voice
>jis at mit.edu
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080822/74f005a0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list