[arin-ppml] LRSA taking back addresses

[Stephen Sprunk]

Cliff Bedore wrote:
> Quoting from the ARIN legacy page
>
> "Note that ARIN will not reclaim unutilized address space from legacy holders who sign this RSA, nor will ARIN attempt to take away legacy resources from organizations who choose not to sign it. However, signing the Legacy RSA contractually locks in a set of rights, and thus reduces the risk of future change to a minimum."
>
> Note the section that says " nor will ARIN attempt to take away legacy resources from organizations who choose not to sign it."  So if I don't sign it, my address space is safe but if I sign it and then want to terminate for any reason, ARIN can reclaim the addresses.  What's wrong with this picture? 

That is the situation today (a point I think the FAQ doesn't make 
clear), but future policy may change.  For instance, next year, ARIN 
could adopt a proposal to revoke all legacy space.  Signing an LRSA 
before that happened would contractually prevent ARIN from applying that 
policy to you.

> At a minimum, the address space should fall back to the status of those who don't sign the LRSA at all.
>   

I'd prefer that approach, actually.  If a legacy holder doesn't abide by 
the terms of the LRSA, their protection should simply terminate and 
services should revert to the status of anyone else who never signed the 
LRSA -- which, by that point, might mean total loss of services or even 
revocation or it might just mean the same ambiguous status quo as 
today.  If I were depending on those resources for my business, I'd find 
that worth $100/yr.

> Slightly tongue in cheek, the section "However, signing the Legacy RSA contractually locks in a set of rights, and thus reduces the risk of future change to a minimum." doesn't sound a whole lot different from two guys walking into a neighborhood store and saying "You know there's a lot of crime and arson in this area.  If you sign a contract for our security service, your risks in this neighborhood will not be as high as if you don't sign with us."
>   

That's only illegal if the crime is caused by the same organization as 
the folks offering "protection".  ARIN failing to provide services you 
haven't paid for, however, is not a crime.  Lots of companies offer you 
the ability to lock in today's rate with a contract to protect against 
potential rate hikes in the future, and that's perfectly legal.  Lots of 
legitimate security companies will offer you protection against crime in 
addition to the minimal protection provided by the police.

S