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

[Cliff Bedore]

Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> 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."
>   

Again I would point to my LRSA-lite posting of August 23 which contains 
my thoughts on an acceptable agreement.  I don't know if it is in enough 
excruciating detail but it hits all my concerns.  It probably needs some 
legalese but the major points are there.

Cliff
>  	
>   
>> 	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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>