[arin-ppml] Can a personal property approach ever transition into multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model?

[Mark Andrews]

In message <BANLkTiknwJcv8ghzmjjRTSJtoiJ-ih__AQ at mail.gmail.com>, William Herrin
 writes:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> > You had to demonstrate (attest) need for the address
> > even back then. From memory it was 1, 3 and 5 years projections
> > and it was the 3 and 5 year projections that got me the class B.
> 
> No need to recall. Many of the old forms are right here:
> 
> http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/
> 
> 
> > The only thing different today is that the process is much more
> > formalised.
> 
> If you really want to understand what's changed, go to the Crab Book:
> O'Reilly & Associates TCP/IP
> Network Administration. On selecting IP addresses, the 1993 edition
> had this to say:
> 
> "Obtaining a network address from the NIC is simple and costs nothing.
> There are no advantages to choosing your own unofficial network
> address -- except that you do not have to fill out an application."

To connect to the Internet you needed official addresses.  To use
IP in a disconnected state you didn't.  Legacy holder all got offical
addresses.

> You asked for addresses. If you had a good reason, you got more than a
> /24. If not, you got a /24. And that was it. Ownership or lack was not
> contemplated. What did or didn't justify need was not contemplated.
> Rules for transfer were not contemplated. The thinking around IP
> addressing was simply not that sophisticated.

Actually the need was based on projected numbers of hosts and assumed
a flat network.
 
> By 1997 when ARIN's creation was being planned, the thinking had
> become a little more sophisticated. There was this idea that there
> probably should be an ongoing back and forth responsibility between
> the registrant and registrar.

Indeed.
 
> At which point an informal Indian Treaty was made to smooth the path
> for ARIN's existence. You can find reference to it in Randy Bush's
> April '97 presentation to the FNCAC (Federal Networking Council
> Advisory Committee). Page 9 of
> http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf
> 
> "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no
> policy changes."
>
> So, shall we keep the now-inconvenient promise? Or find a reason why
> we didn't really actually mean exactly that promise and march the
> legacy registrants to their new reservation?

I've never seen the need to force people into a LRSA.  Updating
nameservers records and POC is a minimal cost on a annual basis. I
also don't believe that legacy address are yours to sell.  They are
yours to use.  Others have different opinions.

> IMO, our ability to keep the promise speaks volumes about ARIN's
> trustworthiness. And a failure to keep it would reflect a decline in
> credibility.
> 
> And for what? So we can squeeze the legacy registrants a little bit
> instead of waiting and letting the rise of IPv6 put an end to the
> issue for us? Not worth it!
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --=20
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com=A0 bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org