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

[Howard, W. Lee]

Darn Windows (i.e., user fatfinger) sent message before I was ready. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:23 AM
> To: Eric Westbrook; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the 
> Legacy Registration
> 
> > 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?  I think you mean that you don't believe
you should be required to release your address space under
any circumstances.  I think the few circumstances remaining
in the LRSA are reasonable; can you list the ones you think
are unfair?
 
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.

By "we" I mean "that's what I was trying to do."

 	
> 	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;

I'm not sure I've seen that stated explicitly, but that seems
like a reasonable preference.  That would include falling
out of touch/compliance with the LRSA, too (if signed).

> 	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.

I concede that.  That's why I didn't argue that legacy holders
must be able to show utilization (whether under current 
policies, RFC2050, or the policies or use stated at the time
of original assignment).


> Eric

Thank you for your reasonable tone and contribution.

Lee

Disclaimer:  I wrote this, nobody else, and it's entirely possible
that other Board members, ARIN staff, General Counsel, or my wife
will disagree or remember differently.