[arin-ppml] New IPv4 Transfer policy

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/10/2011 10:06 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 5/10/11 10:16 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> On 5/9/2011 11:02 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> On 5/9/11 17:11 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>> Ask ARIN
>>>>
>>>> Financially, the fees for the block of numbers that Microsoft got
>>>> from that transfer are nothing in comparison to what they paid for
>>>> it, and Microsoft is also known for spending tons of money on
>>>> useless stuff. So there must have been some difference between
>>>> the RSA and the LRSA that made Microsoft choose the LRSA and the
>>>> only thing I can think of is the LRSA is less restrictive in some
>>>> manner.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect we need to have ARIN modify the LRSA. The LRSA was sold
>>>> to us on the basis that it was the same thing as the RSA without
>>>> the annual fee. Obviously, the Microsoft lawyers found out that
>>>> this wasn't true. ARIN has a lot of explaining to do, here.
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you feel you were sold. However, the details of the
>>> LRSA are not secret, have been published for sometime, and there is more
>>> than just a difference in fees for Legacy ISPs. Note: Legacy end users
>>> pay the same annual fees as any other end user.
>>
>> Microsoft, a company with 80K employees, could not have possibly
>> provided justification that would have resulted in 50% utilization of
>> 500K additional IP addresses in 1 year. Are you proposing the company
>> grow 4 times it's existing size in 1 year? The only possible
>> justification would be if they were buying them to reallocate to
>> customers in a network the same way that any LIR does.
>>
>> I fail to see what is to be gained by defending what Microsoft did here.
>> Insisting that ARIN have them sign an LRSA instead of the RSA is
>> deplorable. For all ARIN's labor they put into handling this transfer
>> they get paid $100?
>
> I think you misunderstand my comments, I have not, and refuse to
> speculate, defend, or otherwise comment regarding what Microsoft did or
> didn't do. I simple do not know enough facts to do anything but
> participate in rumor mongering, so I have decided to abstain from
> commenting. However, I'll admit I have been very tempted, so please
> don't take this comment as condemning you or anyone else who has
> commented, that is not my intent. I simply want to set the record
> strait, it wasn't my intent to comment about Microsoft.
>
> My comment was directed at what I felt was your accusation that you felt
> the LRSA was misrepresented and was only about the fees that a legacy
> resource holder should pay.
>

OK, but that still doesn't really answer my question of what about
the LSRA is so much better than the RSA for a company like Microsoft,
which probably spends more in it's annual budget for office birthday
parties than it would on ARIN fees?

In other words, if the fee difference isn't the issue, what is it?

>> ARIN costs money to run and it isn't the Net Fairies that pay for it.
>> It's all the ISP's who are reallocating IP
>> addresses that pay for ARIN, that is money that is coming out of the
>> pockets of hard working men and women who build the networks that
>> allow Joe Blow and Sally Schmoe to get online.
>
> I agree running ARIN and all that represents, which is far more than
> just running a database, is expensive. I personally have had nothing to
> do with setting the rate structure. I simple arranged for the legacy
> resource holding organization that I represent, at least in my day job,
> to sign a LRSA, after what I felt were necessary improvements had been
> made. So, the University of Minnesota is at least paying something
> related to its Legacy holdings now, making its contribution.
>

The U of Min isn't really a competitor (and most Universities are in 
this boat) with a commercial ISP - at least I hope it isn't - so
there is at least that.

There has been a discussion in the past regarding use of fees as a
tool to retard IPv4 address consumption.  I look on this as more
of a fairness issue.

The fee structure is, fundamentally, based on the notion that a 
commercial money-making LIR should pay more than something like a public
university even though they may consume fewer IPv4 addresses.

Thus it is very irritating when a commercial entity like Microsoft
appears to get off scott free without making any kind of additional
compensation to ARIN for enabling it to essentially make a ton more
money than it's competitors.

Do we really want an Internet with a few large LIRs and all the
smaller ones gone out of business?  Because that is what the ARIN
fee structure encourages.

>>> So, your view on the
>>> difference, or lack there of, in the fees can vary significantly
>>> depending on your perspective.
>>
>> Here's a thought, how about we charge EVERY address holder the same
>> amount of money that end users pay?
>
> I think there are defiantly some inequities between the fees for a large
> end user organization and a small ISP, especially in the case of IPv4.
> In the case of the University of Minnesota, we felt that an IPv6
> allocation was most appropriate for our planned use of IPv6 and we
> should be paying an annual fee associated with that allocation. So those
> inequities may fade as part of the IPv6 transition, in some cases, at
> least that is my hope.
>

There are more inequities between a large LIR and a small LIR.

>>> There has been a FAQ regarding the LRSA
>>> for sometime as well, the current version is at;
>>> https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/
>>>
>>> It provides an excellent summary of the LRSA, for those who aren't into
>>> recreationally reading contracts. :) I know the LRSA, and the RSA,
>>> almost put me to sleep when I had to read it as part of getting my
>>> organization to sign them. :) I only survived with the assistance of
>>> multiple caffeinated beverages. :)
>>>
>>> I'll also add that a number of improvements have been made in the LRSA
>>> since its initial version, and a number of these improvements have been
>>> integrated into the RSA as well, for the benefit of everyone who has
>>> received resources from ARIN.
>>>
>> The problem here is you cannot discern the real difference between the
>> RSA and the LRSA just by reading them. Just as you cannot discern the
>> real meaning of the NRPM by just reading it. For example the NRPM
>> says that transfer recipients sign "RSA" It is only when you parse the
>> syntax the way that a lawyer would that you can see that this could
>> mean an LRSA or an RSA.
>
> Agreed, the NRPM, RSA, and LRSA are not simple to understand, but I'm
> not completely sure what can really be done about that. As an AC member
> I have been trying to make the NRPM more understandable, but that leads
> to long and wordy policy proposals which a vocal portion of the
> community doesn't like.

Well, I might say they better man up because in business that is how
contracts are.  Our last AT&T contract was 6 pages of small print.

Businesses have learned that short contracts leave huge loopholes 
because they leave too much to interpretation.  One of my former
bosses was like that.  He was a supporter of the "single page contract"
Yet he got screwed over time and again by other businesses.

> They want to deal with small concise portions of
> policy text at a time. I understand that desire, but it doesn't lead to
> a smooth, flowing, understandable overall body of policy text. It
> creates stand-alone ideas that may or may not logically link or flow
> with the text and other policies surrounding it.
>

And it creates massive loopholes.  Lawyers love people like that.

> As for the RSA and LRSA they are contracts and the realm of lawyers and
> legalese and probably always will be, this is not a new problem though,
> Shakespeare said "kill all the Lawyers." I'm not sure that is a socially
> acceptable solution to the problem. :)
>
>> I would like to know what the Microsoft lawyers parsed out of the two
>> documents that made the LRSA so much more attractive. I can read both
>> documents and see differences but I don't know how a lawyer would
>> interpret what those differences are and why one would be so much more
>> attractive than the other.
>
> Unfortunately that is not how our adversarial legal system works.
>

our adversarial legal system is far better than anything else, but
you simply don't get into that realm unless you know what you are
doing.

Over the last 25 years of my life, every single story
I have ever heard from anyone who has felt "screwed over" by the lawyers
or the legal system - and that includes personal as well as business
problems - can be boiled down to lack of adequate communication at the
very beginning.  Every one.

Yes, people can do things like enter into business dealings or marriages
or home sales with inadequate contracts that do not specify enough, and
the majority of them work out.

But, your never going to find one of these dealings that has gone sour 
where the parties feel screwed over by the system, when there was an 
adequate level of contracting done in the beginning.  People may kick 
themselves for signing the used car lease, they may blame the dealer and 
decide he's a snake, but they don't go blaming the legal system.

Ted

>> Ted
>
>