[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Whois Authentication Alternatives

Kevin Oberman oberman at es.net
Tue Aug 26 19:50:15 EDT 2008

> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:56:27 -0500
> From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
> Sender: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> Jo Rhett wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >   
> >>> I suspect the half of the towns people who set decent rules and
> >>> tried to preserve the commons will be relatively unsympathetic at
> >>> that point in time that those who have avoided participating in
> >>> society and openly mocked them are now receiving their just rewards.
> >>>       
> >> kiddies, get a clue.  many folk with legacy space were building the
> >> internet while you were still in nappies.  we think it is you who are
> >> pissing on the commons.
> >>     
> >
> > I don't disagree.  But I don't think that ARIN should spend time/ 
> > resources trying to help people who aren't paying members.  Basic  
> > conservative approach.
> >   
> That logic assumes it's the registrant who gets the benefit of the free 
> service, while in fact the registrant gets little to no benefit.  They 
> already know who they are and what they have.  The benefit of WHOIS is 
> to let _others_ know who they are and what they have, and the majority 
> of those "others" are the ones paying the bill and to whom the benefit 
> actually accrues.  If anything, we should be thanking the few legacy 
> folks that do keep their information up to date, since they have no 
> obligation nor much incentive to do so.  Putting more obstacles in their 
> path just means fewer will bother with the hassle, and the commons will 
> suffer.

Thanks you, Stephen! Someone finally stated the obvious. A complete
registry is of benefit to everyone. (I think that this is probably "the
commons" to which Randy was referring.) Rest assured that the $100 is not
an issue keeping  most legacy holders from signing the LRSA.
> > It's not like any of these individuals (who are still alive and  
> > frankly are mostly active in ARIN today) are unaware of ARIN or that  
> > the legacy RSA exists
> What the folks on this list, or the folks who built the Internet, think 
> and what their employers' or ex-employers' managements and/or legal 
> counsel are willing to do may be (and often are) wildly divergent.  
> Discussion here of the LRSA is interesting but not productive; ARIN's 
> counsel is the one that drafted it and is getting feedback from 
> potential signers about possible problems.  PPML is not, and IMHO should 
> not be, involved in that cycle.

A very valid point. Our customers almost all hold legacy space, some
using it well and others not so well. If they get their space from us,
we mandate that they comply with ARIN rules for utilization even though
our assignments are from legacy space.

I know that several have been told that under applicable laws in their
states, they simply cannot sign the LRSA. I mean as in "It would be a
criminal offense to do so". I am not a lawyer, so I won't comment as the
the validity of the lawyer's issues, but, working for an organization
that must meet both Federal Government and State of California
purchasing requirements, I suspect that the opinions are correct. We
have had long battle with very standard contract clauses that we can't
sign. There is a reason Switch and Data refuses to deal with anyone
contracting under GSA procurement rules.
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080826/70733a9d/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list