[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Benson Schliesser
<bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
> Hi, John.
>
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 2:08 PM, John Santos wrote:
>
>> 1) This is an opt-in, not an opt-out policy.  You might discover that
>> lots of legacy holders will get very pissed off if their reverse DNS
>> suddenly goes away.  I know I would.
>>
>> 2) There didn't seem to be any provision for notifying legacy holders
>> of this change in policy.  I certainly wouldn't know about it if I
>> didn't subscribe to this mailing list.
>
> These are valid concerns.  I think it is a good idea to include some additional text, for instance instructing ARIN to contact each organization.  I'm not sure I grasp how difficult this would be.  I'm also not sure whether this would be policy, meta-policy, rationale, etc. Comments on how specifically to deal with this concern in the proposal would be appreciated.
>
>> 3) It isn't clear if legacy holders *MUST* sign an LRSA (or move to a
>> regular RSA) to retain Whois, RDNS, etc. or not.
>
> Hopefully prop 133 is clear that a LRSA will be a valid "request" for services.  But it doesn't make any limitations on what other kinds of request might be valid, i.e. it doesn't specify that the legacy holder must sign a LRSA.  If ARIN policy permits something other than the LRSA, as a request for services by legacy address holders, that would not be prohibited by prop 133.
>
>> 4) What is the point of this?
>
> The point of submitting the proposal is to encourage discussion of how ARIN should treat legacy address holders.  The point of the policy proposal itself is to make it clear that ARIN won't exercise authority (e.g. policy enforcement via the Whois) over anybody that hasn't requested it.  I believe that this is more legally viable than the current approach.
>
> One additional comment, to clarify a misconception: The point of this policy is not to "punish" legacy address holders that don't sign the LRSA.  It might have that effect for some, but I'm not sure how to avoid it while developing policy that defines the relationship between legacy holders and ARIN.  If anybody has suggestions for improving the policy text in this regard, I'm happy to discuss it.
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

Section 13.1 seems to be poorly written. "Except in the specific
circumstances described by this policy, ARIN will
not provide any services for any organization and/or address block."
If ARIN didn't provide any services to any organization I would
probably have to stop paying my annual dues. ;)

I agree with this proposal on it's own merits and disagree that the
intent is to vilify legacy address holders. As a matter of
transparency, it would be decent of anyone opposing this and similar
proposals to state any interest they may have in maintaining the
status quo for legacy space.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions