[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Sep 24 12:51:48 EDT 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Cliff Bedore
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:40 AM
> To: PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the
> Legacy Registration
> I haven't seen this discussed in a while and I still see the "no fall
> back to status quo" as a problem. I think if ARIN would change the
> "terminate for convenience" by the legacy holder so that the address
> space would revert back whatever the status is at that time for those
> who didn't sign the LRSA.
The problem is that the legacy space HAS NO STATUS at the current time.
You are essentially asking for a LSRA that would change the status of
the legacy space, even if later on the agreement was terminated.
Right now it's "undefined" You want a terminated agreement to change
it to "officially assigned"
> My thinking is as follows. ARIN is trying to get Legacy
> address holders
> to sign an LRSA. Many have indicated a willingness to do so under
> certain conditions. It appears that one of the major
> stumbling blocks
> for many Legacy holders is being able to "drop out" at a
> later time for
> unspecified reasons.
> Let's look at what happens if that were allowed. Far more legacies
> appear to be willing to sign and ARIN would have accomplished what it
> wanted to do. Assume at some time in the future, some of the legacy
> holders wanted to terminate "for convenience". If at that
> time, they are
> allowed to drop back to whatever services ARIN provides to
> legacy holders, it would be as if they never signed. If ARIN
> has at that
> time stopped providing any services to non-signers, they are in deep
> doo-doo and they will probably not terminate for convenience.
No, they would just complain that the agreement's "reversion clause"
implied that "things would go back to the way they were" and thus
ARIN would be obligated to continue providing services to them.
> If ARIN
> is providing at that time what they provide now in terms of services,
> ARIN will have had at least some time of membership and updated
> records. Better than having never signed.
> If fewer legacy holders sign up because of the more
> restrictive clauses,
> ARIN will have lost funds and better contact information and
> they will
> be in a worse position than the scernario above.
ARIN gets hardly any funds at all if a LSRA is signed.
> If in the first scenario, ARIN does a good job of
> stewardship, I can't
> believe any who signed the LRSA would want to drop out and
> ARIN is in a
> better position to recover truly abandoned IPv4.
> I think most legacy people feel they should not end up worse off than
> the non-signers if they do sign
I agree. However, MANY people who HAVE signed the LSRA do NOT feel that
they are worse off - yet they were once legacy people.
How do you reconcile that Joe Blow who signed feels better off than
Sally Schmoe who didn't sign the same document because she
feels it makes her worse off? It's the same dang document!!!
It's a matter of interpretation. When people like you make statements
"...legacy people feel they should not end up worse off than
the non-signers if they do sign..."
you are simply perpetuating a falsehood that somehow, signing the LSRA
makes a legacy holder worse off than they are now.
> and I think that one clause
> makes them
> feel that way. If you want, think of it as a "no fault
> divorce" where
> each party leaves with what they came in with.
This is a false analogy. An accurate analogy would be is if right now,
ARIN were to STOP providing whois for legacy holders who hadn't signed,
and give them to option of getting something - continued whois services -
The legacy holders would then be "getting" something - whois - out of the
agreement, just as 2 single people are "getting" something - financial
and social security - out of the marriage agreement.
If a divorce happens then the married couple are "losing" something - the
marriage, just as an opt-out clause in a LSRA would have the legacy holder
"lose" something - whois.
But right now the legacy holders are ALREADY getting whois. Just as 2
unmarried singles are "getting something" when they live together.
Thus, the difficulty of getting legacy holders to sign the LSRA is no
different than the difficulty of getting unmarried singles living together
to sign the marriage document.
Both of them are already getting what they want out of the relationship,
- so why sign? Sex or whois - it's the same thing in this analogy. ;-)
More information about the ARIN-PPML