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

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:24 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: 'PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the 
> Legacy Registration
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Actually what I said was it would go back to the status of the 
> >> non-signers of the LRSA.  If that is considered undefined, that's 
> >> what it would go back to.  I tend to think the status is maybe 
> >> "special circumstances"  Those who use their space and have up to 
> >> date info are being served by ARIN.  You can lookup 
> 192.68.145.0 and 
> >> I'm in the database and ARIN says as of now they don't 
> plan to change 
> >> that if I don't sign. As per the LRSA page at ARIN
> >>
> > That status is undefined.  While ARIN currently (and likely will
> > continue) provides these services to legacy holders for free, it is 
> > unclear if ARIN has any continuing obligation to do so. It is my 
> > understanding that a valid contract must contain defined provisions 
> > for what happens at termination.  A return to an undefined 
> state does 
> > not appear to be plausible in a valid contract.
> >
> > How would you define the "special status" without turning it into a 
> > continuing single-sided obligation on ARIN?  Once services 
> are covered 
> > by a contract, termination of the contract generally is expected to 
> > lead to termination of the services.  In the meantime, you 
> happen to 
> > be getting services without a contract, but, nothing 
> guarantees that 
> > those services will be continued without a contract. 
> Nothing says they 
> > won't.
> 
> I think LRSA 14(c) covers this with "the Legacy Agreement 
> will be terminated and the Included Number Resources will 
> resume the status they had prior to the Legacy Agreement."  I 
> think what folks are asking for is that the same would apply 
> for _any_ termination, not just a subset of them.  If that's 
> what it takes for folks to sign it, fine.
> 
> However, I want to reiterate that, unless someone on the AC 
> or BoT tells me otherwise, modifications to the LRSA are a 
> matter for individuals to take up with ARIN's counsel and not 
> on PPML.  PPML is for debating policy, not contracts.

What follows are my own opinions, which may not necessarily
reflect how I vote as a community representative or a 
fiduciary of ARIN, and certainly couldn't reflect the opinion 
of ARIN staff, Board, AC, or counsel, since they haven't made 
their opinions known to me.

In general, I agree with you.
However, there is a policy area around, "What are the
rights of legacy assignees, and what are ARIN's obligations
to them?"  Debating the contract terms in specific should be
out of scope, but debating the general framework is well
within the public policy arena.  IMHO.

Cliff makes an excellent argument, that if a legacy signer 
later drops out, both parties are no worse off than they 
are now.  However, since that may not always be the case 
(for either ARIN, or the legacy signer, or both), and the 
whole point of the LRSA is to "normalize" the relationship, 
I still believe that once an organization is committed to
participating, their commitment should be binding, except
where they are compelled (for "cause" as defined in the
contract) to withdraw.  

People on this list made excellent, clear, and fair
suggestions about how to rework the LRSA, and ARIN listened
and modified it significantly.  The only suggestion that
was not accepted, from what I've seen, is that Legacy 
holders-signers be able to take their football and
go home in a snit.  If ARIN does something wrong ("cause")
you can justifiably have a snit and go home.  Otherwise, I
think everyone should be in the same boat.  Playing football.
It's a big boat.

Get on board!

Lee


PS: It doesn't matter whether the "football" is American or
what the rest of the world plays, the metaphor works 
equally poorly.