[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks
dpinkard at accessline.com
Mon Feb 14 16:10:52 EST 2011
As I read this, the goal is to defeat using the whois registration as a
tool to beat the heads of those who may consider signing the LRSA. I
agree with that notion, especially as it makes it clear that forcing
people into policy in a heavy-handed way can easily run-afoul of
legalities and simple good-will. However, as it has been pointed out, we
don't really want to lose that resource for the people who do pay.
However unfair of those who don't pay up a little, the larger disservice
would be to remove that all together. And what of the gray area for
organizations who have some stuff under RSA and some stuff that should
be LRSA if anyone were motivated to do it?
It seems like taking away the baby's rattle is a good step, but not that
way. What other means are available to motivate organizations to bring
legacy space under the LRSA that don't cause other problems? If we're
loking at the larger picture of parceling out unused or underutilized
IPv4 space, is there a way ARIN can ease those needs in trade? (Is there
a desire to help or harm that?)
Benson Schliesser 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.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML