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

[Richard Wooten]

Eric Westbrook wrote:

> 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 
> <mailto: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.

Eric,

I'm one legacy holder you're also speaking for... I'm in full agreement 
with you.

This can and should be resolved with the ARIN without the Court system 
getting into
the middle, because, we'll both, Legacy holders and the ARIN, end up 
with something
nether of us can live with. 

I think IPv6 is the answer, however as other have, so very well pointed 
out, IPv6 does
have it own set of problems, major ones.

Now, all that said, is IPv4 going away in the next 10 or 15 years?  No 
is not and you
all know that as well as I do.  Let's get pasted all this, and get on 
with making the
internet a safer place to do business.


Cheers,
Richard


>
> 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
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080907/9be145d9/attachment.htm>