[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 108: Eliminate the term license in the NRPM

[Sweeting, John]

Bill,

Thanks for your thoughts and input. The AC will certainly take your input into account. 

+++++

----- Original Message -----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Fri Feb 12 19:15:41 2010
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 108: Eliminate the term license in	the NRPM

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> So do you prefer the text in 6.4.1 as it is now?

David,

Yes, actually, I do. The existing 6.4.1 says stuff like "RIRs will
generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting
organizations are making a good-faith effort at meeting the criteria
under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or
assignment." And it applies only to IPv6 addresses.

Your version makes no assurances about registrant treatment and
expands the principle of non-ownership to additional number resources
beyond IPv6, not just as a matter of contract but as a matter of
public policy. I don't know the intent of the author of 6.4.1 as he
negotiated his way to consensus, but your proposed text is not
consistent with where 6.4.1 ended up. It should not be described as
minor editorial adjustment.


Look, here's the deal: the idea that folks don't own their cyberspace
real estate, that they merely have a limited grant of rights and
privileges formed of a consensus of the interested managed by some
NGO... well, it's a gross parody of feudal economics. It has some
really arcane and harmful side-effects that make life hard for folks
who don't have the time or desire to be in the thick of it. It's more
or less workable for now but sooner or later we're going to have to
revisit the issue in detail and come up with a design that's less 14th
century.

In the mean time, a little ambiguity is a good thing. Eliminating
ambiguity in favor of the interpretation that ARIN can revoke
addresses critical for your and my networks at its pleasure is an
unhealthy and, by more than a few, unwanted change.


The change I would endorse to 6.4.1 is its deletion and replacement
with nothing at all. The RSA says what "needs" saying. As it already
does with IPv4, let the NRPM stand mute on the question of whether IP
addresses are some kind of property.

I OPPOSE proposal 108 in its current form.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
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.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.