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

[Eric Westbrook]

Not sure this went through to the list on the first try, so re-sending.
Please disregard if duplicate.

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Howard, W. Lee <
Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com> wrote:

> 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?


I'm happy to clarify however I can.  And while I'm admittedly motivated to
protect my own resources, I would like to think I'm speaking to concerns
held by many other legacy holders, in the hopes of championing terms we can
all live with happily and peaceably as a community.

My point on that score is this:  Today, I don't have to worry about
involuntary release.  Perhaps "control" is the wrong term, but that's more
or less what I mean by it.  I'd like to remain unworried about that.  And
I'm willing to participate reasonably (indeed, perhaps generously) to work
for that.

I think I must be confused about what the "few circumstances" to which you
refer are, because they don't seem few to me.  Being bound to current and
future policy, without a release disavowment clause in the LRSA, means that
ARIN policy could change out from under legacy holders in unanticipated
ways, very conceivably resulting in disagreeable involuntary release.


> 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."


That sentiment reassures me enormously.  So, why not make it explicit?  I
think that a clear statement to that effect in the LRSA, without exceptions
made for future unanticipated policy changes, would go far toward satisfying
even the most skeptical legacy holders (although possibly not the most
penny-pinching).


> >       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).


That seems fair enough to me.


>  >       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).


Among the points I tried to make, I find this one the most resonant.  If
it's so extremely unlikely to benefit anyone, why insist on it, particularly
when doing so seems to create a barrier to the participation of so many?


> Thank you for your reasonable tone and contribution.


My pleasure.  I thank you for the same, and I also thank you for saying so.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080908/1fe19ddc/attachment.htm>