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

[John Springer]

Hi Jeffrey,

On the off chance that I'm the John to whom you refer there is an inline 
comment, if not, please pardon the intrusion.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>>> Specific to this proposition, I find it fundamentally flawed that I
>>> have to pay for something that another receives for free merely
>>> because they got in first.
>>
>> For years, ARIN mostly ignored legacy resource holders so legacy resource holders mostly ignored ARIN.
>>
>> Not long after I joined the ARIN Policy mailing list, there was a big flap about how legacy resource holders were not paying their fair share of the ARIN costs. I went off to the ARIN web site and could not find any way for a legacy resource holder to voluntarily bring their resources under ARIN's control. So I ranted a bit about how the evil legacy resource holders were not taking advantage of some unavailable mechanism to pay their fair share.
>>
>> I think this discussion (about July, 2007) was some of the impetus for the creation of the LRSA. The LRSA was initially released in November, 2007, a bit over three years and three months ago. Since then, ARIN has been working to get legacy resource holders to buy into the LRSA, but this is an ongoing process.
>>
>> How does this proposal benefit you other than somehow sticking it to the legacy resource holders who are receiving services for free?
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
>
> Keith, John, et al,
>
> I have no ill will toward legacy holders and I completely understand
> that the actual cost of providing free services is negligible. My
> concern is more principle in nature. If someone is operating IP
> resources in the ARIN region they should be compelled to pay the same
> fees that we all must pay and follow the rules that we all must
> follow.

The difficulty arises in that the legacy allocations under discussion 
predate ARIN and ARIN does not appear to have ascended to authority over 
them by its creation. I will be happy to be corrected if this is not the 
case.

I hope that "...they should be..." won't be enough to change that and 
"they should not be" might be enough to prevent it.

I don't have any legacy space. If legacy holders, for what reason seems 
good to them, don't want to sign an LRSA, I don't think they should have 
to.

> This proposal would begin to achieve that result.

I'd rather it wouldn't. About face, forward march, and all that.

best regards

John Springer

> With that said, I did not sponsor this proposal nor do I have a
> significant dog in this fight. I'm merely expressing my point of view
> that I agree with the proposal for the sake of putting in my two
> cents.
>
> -- 
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>