[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Feb 15 14:50:02 EST 2011
On 2/15/2011 11:18 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>> Going a step further, are there really legacy address holders out
>> there who are upset about receiving free services from ARIN?
>> Barring that, I do not understand the problem that section 13.1 is
>> trying to solve. If there are, it would be nice to hear from them
>> here. And, even if there are, the community is best served by
>> accurate Whois data so their argument against participating would
>> have to be compelling indeed to make this idea palatable at all.
> There are legacy holders with concern, not because the services are
> free, but because they are subjected to governance without their
Baloney. They are consenting to being governed by continuing to
use the legacy IPv4 resources to connect to the rest of the Internet.
Nobody is holding a gun to their head and telling them that they
HAVE to continue to use those IPv4 resources.
If they don't like being governed by ARIN without their consent
then STOP USING the resources.
The only value those resources have for them is to plug in to the rest
of us who ARE being governed by ARIN, so to say that the RIR's
stewardship of IPv4 could somehow be arranged to NOT affect their use of
their IPv4 is pretty ridiculous.
> It would not be appropriate for me to speak more specifically on
> their behalf. I, too, would like to see legacy holders communicate
> their perspective here. But given the legal perspective that some of
> them have toward ARIN, I unfortunately doubt they will participate in
> this community. (And I would be glad for somebody to prove me wrong
> on this point.)
>> Once you eliminate 13.1, this proposal reads like an attempt to
>> update the transfer policy. If that is indeed a goal of this
>> proposal; I suggest further review of the current specified
>> transfer policy (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight3), and
>> a simplification of the current proposal language.
> In fact, I am currently drafting a proposal to update the specified
> transfer policy.
> I think you are correct in seeing the relationship between prop 133
> and the transfer policy, because restrictions on transfer is one of
> the issues faced by legacy holders. But prop 133 deals with the case
> where legacy holders don't wish to rely on ARIN for transfer at all.
> We should improve the specified transfer policy to be more
> accommodating, but even then we have to decide whether ARIN is
> correct to enforce policy without consent.
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML