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

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:00 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> 
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 2:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 25, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> I have no argument opposing that ARIN is obligated to perform according to its own bylaws and agreements (with ICANN, RSA holders, etc).  My statement is that ARIN lacks authority to exert regulation over unaffiliated organizations, such as legacy holders that haven't signed a LRSA.  If such an organization decides to transfer addresses without consulting ARIN, and ARIN enforces policy over that organization as a result of their actions, then ARIN has exerted authority.  Where does such authority come from?
>> 
>> ARIN has full authority to manage entries in the 
>> ARIN Whois database.
> 
> And no responsibility for the impact?
> 
> This facile answer is tiring - I've heard it many times, and it is a word game.  Actions have consequences, and enforcing policy over the "ARIN Whois" will effect the community.  Specifically, the manner in which ARIN manages the Whois database may lead to different routing behavior, with a number of possible business and legal ramifications.  Word games don't change that fact.
> 
Neither does ARIN policy. ARIN policy does not affect router configurations directly.
If you want to talk to people that run routers, nanog at nanog.org is -> that way,
cisco-nsp is <- that way.

You talk about word games, but, you are the one proposing to create ARIN policy
to define a set of people you claim are not subject to ARIN policy which will create
requirements on their behavior in being exempt from ARIN policy.

If that isn't a word game (or at least a good example of cognitive dissonance
combined with sophistry), it's certainly dysfunctional at best.

> 
>>> Yes, I read ICP-2 before asking the question.  It appears to prefer ("should") a single RIR per region, and gives reasons for a centralized management structure.  However I don't see where ICP-2 limits the ability of an RIR to choose the specific implementation details of that management structure.  Can you clarify further?
>> 
>> Please ask your question in the context of your policy proposal
>> 136 so that I may address the question.  As it is, I am unable 
>> to determine if you are suggesting that alternative registries 
>> would be an "implementation detail of that management structure"
>> within the ARIN region.
> 
> In the context of proposal 136, as well as 133 and 134, you have suggested the need for a global policy discussion.  My question is a result of your suggestion.  Why specifically, in the context of global policy, is this not a matter for ARIN to decide?  As I outlined in my quoted text above, I don't think ICP-2 limits ARIN's ability to decide this issue.  But this is an honest question - if I'm overlooking something I'd like to know.
> 
John quoted specifically the section of ICP-2 that specifies that there
shall be one registry per geographic region. I think that makes it pretty
clear that ICP-2 prohibits ARIN from recognizing additional registries
much like the constitution limits the powers of congress.

Owen

> Thanks,
> -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.