[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks

[Benson Schliesser]

Hi, John.

On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:51 PM, John Curran wrote:
> If the intended benefit of ARIN-prop-136 is to actually to
> propose alternative transfer policies, it would be best to 
> propose the specific changes to the transfer policy section 
> of NRPM.

The intended benefit of ARIN-prop-136 is to accommodate organizations that do not consent to be regulated by ARIN policy.

Secondary benefits may accrue to organizations that opt-out, presumably motivating them to do so.  There may be any number of benefits, including alternative approaches to transfers.

It is my belief that ARIN doesn't have any fundamental authority to prevent an opt-out, and that prop-136 would reconcile policy with reality in order to avoid unnecessary damages (to the address holders and the community).

On Feb 24, 2011, at 6:01 PM, John Curran wrote:
> If it turns out there are parties who neither like the policy nor are willing to 
> participate in getting it changed to meet their needs, then ARIN probably 
> can't help them, because we bound by existing agreements to manage the 
> resources accordingly and to maintaining an open and transparent process 
> for policy change.

While I do have an open mind on the topic, I don't currently accept the premise that ARIN has the authority to force any legacy holders to submit to regulation or participate in its development.  Threats of reclamation are an attempt to enforce policy on an organization that does not submit, in a manner that may cause legal liability to ARIN if acted upon, and I anticipate that such activity would violate US anti-trust laws.

In that light, I'm motivated to help ARIN avoid improper behavior by personally participating in the development of policy.  By submitting ARIN-prop-136 I am doing exactly that.  I am not a legacy address holder, nor do I have any vested interest in any registry or related organization.  I'm simply concerned about the future of ARIN, the rights of legacy holders, and the needs of the global Internet community.  The constituents directly affected by this proposal may or may not participate in policy discussion, but that has never stopped ARIN from developing policy.

As to the specific point about "existing agreements to manage the resources", and your comments elsewhere about the need for a global policy discussion, can you please clarify?  I may be overlooking something, but I cannot find anything that prohibits ARIN from allowing organizations to opt-out of receiving ARIN services.  Nor have I found anything prohibiting a registry/registrar system, liberal post-allocation transfers, etc.  It would seem to be within ARIN's scope to define policy and implementation within the ARIN region.

Cheers,
-Benson