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

[David Farmer]

William Herrin wrote:
> 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." 

You make a fair point.  The automatic renewal with good-faith effort on 
the part of the resource holder should be retained.  That is good policy 
that probably shouldn't have been removed.

> 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. 

The fact that this is in section 6 of the NRPM, for IPv6 policy, one 
could interpret that it only was intended to apply to IPv6.  However, 
reading the text it is reasonable to interpret it as a general concept 
applying to all IP addresses, in this case including IPv6, one could 
argue that that is its intent.

A question, what makes IPv6 unique that this should only apply to IPv6 
and not IPv4 or ASNs?

So, I'll give you that this is a technical change, but I do not believe 
that it is a change in the policy's intent.  But, I recognize that 
others may reasonably disagree with me on this point.

> It should not be described as minor editorial adjustment.

I agree it is not a minor editorial change, while I don't believe that 
this changes the policy's intent it does make more than just editorial 
changes.  Therefore it is necessary for this to go through the PDP and 
not simply an editorial change process.  And when change words to the 
extent involved here there is always the possibility of unintended side 
effects

> 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.

I simply disagree with how you characterize the situation.

> 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.

I agree that ARIN shouldn't be able to revoke addresses at its pleasure, 
also know as "for convenience" or "at will".  ARIN should be able to 
revoke resources "for cause" though.  I will note that one of the 
changes made to the LRSA in version 2.0 was to remove the ability of 
ARIN to terminate the agreement for ARIN's convenience, this change was 
also made in the RSA for version 10.0.  Now only the Applicant may 
terminate the agreement for convenience, ARIN may only terminate the 
agreement for cause.

I believe that this is important enough concept, that it shouldn't just 
be left to the contract, it should be included in policy too, and for 
IPv4 and ASNs too, not just IPv6.

> 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 believe this is defiantly a change in the policy's intent.

> I OPPOSE proposal 108 in its current form.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================