[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration

[Howard, W. Lee]

> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Eric Westbrook
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:50 AM
> To: arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy
Registration
	
> 1.  Many legacy holders (myself included) want to formalize a
relationship 
> with ARIN, and even engage in financial participation;

An excellent start.
	
> 2.  Many legacy holders (myself included) are reluctant, to put it 
> mildly, to sacrifice ultimate control of their number resources -- 
> and even more so to pay for the dubious privilege;

I see that.  Can you specify in excrutiating detail what control you
yield?  

Let me put my perspective this way. . . we worked hard to rewrite
the LRSA so that the only circumstances under which you would cede
your addresses to ARIN were under your control.
	
> 3.  The integrity of whois data and financial support of ARIN seem 
> to be the community's best fundamental motivations for legacy holder 
> agreements, even if some would advocate the more controversial
purposes of reallocation, reclamation, or revocation;
	
	4.  All parties have good reasons to discourage the escalation
of disagreements to the level of governmental intervention, especially
for issues that we all should be able to resolve together;
	
	5.  If any legacy holdings are to be seized, the prevailing
sentiment seems to prefer doing so with the unreachable and/or apathetic
holders, and not with the cooperative and participating ones;
	
	6.  Finally, by many if not all accounts, reallocating,
reclaiming, and/or revoking legacy holdings simply isn't likely to
ameliorate ipv4 exhaustion (or ramifications thereof) to any truly
significant or meaningful degree.
	
	Given all of these observations taken together, it seems clear
to me that involuntary reallocation, reclamation, and revocation of
legacy ipv4 number resources should be explicitly disavowed in the LRSA
for those that sign it.  The value of bringing such holders into a
cooperative relationship for consideration and participation seems to
far outweigh the spoils of any actual or potential forcible control over
the resources.
	
	Thanks again for considering my opinions for discussion.
Corrections of my misunderstandings, illumination of error in my biases,
or contrary observations, are welcome and encouraged as always.
	
	Best regards,
	Eric