[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
cort at kanren.net
Sun Sep 7 10:04:15 EDT 2008
When I read Eric's post, which is outstanding by the way, I recall
what my fears were when I read the first LRSA offered to me (I have
not had time to read the new one yet). The way things were worded make
me feel kind of like this:
"So this looks pretty good, except all of the language protecting
ARIN's ability to arbitrarily change the agreement in any way at any
And the first one did pretty much read that way. It's going to take a
long, long time to regain my trust. Interestingly enough, I trusted
ARIN before the one-sided contract and extortive sounding tactics of
the original LRSA. Whether intended or not, that's the way it came
across to me.
On Sep 7, 2008, at 8:34 AM, 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
>>> 1. Many legacy holders (myself included) want to formalize a
>>> 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."
>> 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).
> Thank you for your reasonable tone and contribution.
> 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.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Interim Executive Director
The Kansas Research and Education Network
cort at kanren.net
Office: +1-785-856-9800 x301
More information about the ARIN-PPML