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

[David Farmer]

On 2/15/11 02:24 CST, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Dale W. Carder wrote:
>
>> Also opposed.  This proposal does not appear to encourage the
>> proper stewardship of this dataset.
>
>
> So, do you believe the current approach is proper stewardship?

I believe there were definitely issues with the old approach, which I 
will summarize as "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone." Note, 
that was a two way street, I believe it was critically important for the 
Legacy Holders to leave ARIN more or less alone to form itself, and do 
the job it has done for more than 10 years and to create the next phase 
of the Internet.  Dealing with the "Legacy Issue" to early in ARIN's 
history may have not been a good thing for ARIN.  There was a lot of 
contention over the Legacy resources at the creation of ARIN and the old 
approach was a practical solution that allowed the Internet to move 
forward and become what it is today.

But I say "old approach" because, there has been a number of significant 
changes made over the past 3 years to modify that old approach;

1. The creation and evolution of the Legacy RSA, this took a year to 18 
months to evolve more or less into what we have now.

2. Policy 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

3.. The creation of the transfer policy, as a response to IPv4 exhaustion,

4. Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s

5. And now Draft Policy 2011-2 Protecting Number Resources, which should 
reclaim abandoned resources now that we have made a first cut at 
identifying with 2008-7.

Did the ARIN community wait to long to start dealing with the "Legacy 
Issue"? Probably.  Is it taking to long? Probably.  But, Legacy 
resources holders are not to blame for that, the entire ARIN community is.

> I rather think that pruning questionable data is a better practice than leaving it in the Whois.

I agree, however I believe it is the technical stewardship of the data 
we are looking to reinforce, not the financial stewardship of the 
organization.  No one seems to think that the later is an issue.  Your 
approach seems to focus on the later and probably damages the former.

> We can debate the specifics of implementing such a practice, but I'm interested in whether you (dis)agree fundamentally with that approach to data management.

I prefer moving forward along the lines of 2011-2, I'm not sure it is 
the right policy text yet, but I think it is the right direction.

You seem to have an issue with the Legacy resource holders getting a 
"free ride".  Have you ever considered how much many of the Legacy 
resource holders spent in creating the Internet in the first place? 
Especially in the early 90s when federal grant dollars were only a 
fraction of the total dollars spent on the Internet.  Who is really 
getting the free ride?  But, the money issue is more or less irrelevant 
anyway.  The issue should be the technical stewardship of the resources. 
  Is more work still needed yes, but I'm not convinced proposal 133 
helps the situation more than it hurts it.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================