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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 14 16:54:42 EST 2011

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Dan Pinkard <dpinkard at accessline.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-February/019670.html
>>> 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?)
>> I think that there are a few (workable) issues. In order for law
>> enforcement not to oppose, there needs to be "a" whois registry. The
>> second is in-addr re delegation.
>> I like Bensons proposal. I think it needs some refining, but count me
>> on the tentative support side.
>> Best,
>> -M<

[ clip ]

> You bring up a good point about law enforcement, but the lack of a
> WHOIS entry does not make the assignee untraceable, it merely means
> that ARIN is not providing it's services.

I'm not arguing here, but if we have anything less than we have now in
terms of whois requirements, they'll line up in opposition. The
proposal "could" require a referal to an rwhois server or to another
whois service if one exists. But a whois requirement equal to or
better than ARIN's is a must for this to pass IMHO.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list