[arin-ppml] Analogies

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Tue May 3 09:03:39 EDT 2011

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:12 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 2:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Maybe you mean 10b which [..] doesn't even promise
>> to leave all the registrant's
>> addresses intact... just the ones that "are not currently being
>> utilized."
>   I'm currently looking into this precise phrase, as it appears
>   to combine two concepts incorrectly.  I'll report back shortly.

Hi John,

I appreciate it and I encourage you do dig in to it. But at the same
time I have to say: this is all minutiae. If you want to draw in the
remainder of the legacy registrants, please target the root of the

The root of the problem is this: When you or I or anyone else
carefully analyze the LRSA and map out what connects to what, the LRSA
boils down to this: "I agree to let ARIN take away my addresses
(14b2->14e, the contract's default route) unless {9 pages of
exceptions to the default}."

Regardless of how you write the "exceptions," that just isn't an
acceptable basis for a _mutual_ agreement. It's a basis one accepts
under duress when no other rational choice is available.

When I said a contract simplified to, "We agree to keep your whois
data and RDNS delegations intact as is for one year increments until
either of us choose to cancel this contract," what I meant to imply
was a contract where the default action is "none" and then we go on to
discuss the reasonable exceptions to that rule.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list