[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 2, 2011, at 6:47, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:16:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 06:38:44PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> Mike,
>>>>    What risk do you see in listing un/under-utilized resources that is
>>>> not present in merely holding those resources?
>>> 
>>> Can't say for sure, but I'd guess it's comparable to the risk that
>>> exists in taking out a full page add in the local newspaper announcing
>>> "I will drive 80 in the 60 MPH speed zone at milepost X on highway Y at
>>> XX:XX on XX/XX/2001" that isn't present in driving 80 in a 60 but not
>>> advertising when and where you will be doing it.
>>> 
>> Except that it would be more like doing that after the chief of police and
>> the commandant of the highway patrol had told you that making such
>> an announcement in and of itself would not cause them to pursue you.
> 
> As others have pointed out, even if the chief and the commandant say
> that, and really mean it, and you trust them, they might not be on the
> job forever, and even if they remain on the job, their superiors may
> direct them to change their policy.
> 
> Of course, with the speeding example, if that happens, you can decide
> to stop speeding.  But once you've announced to the world "my addresses
> are unused", you can't unring that bell.
> 
>>> If your resources are underutilized, ARIN *could* do a section 12 audit
>>> and initiate reclamation.  If you don't tell anyone that you are
>>> underutilized, ARIN won't know, so they only way you'd get hit with an
>>> audit is if you got really unlucky.  If you tell the world (by putting
>>> them up for auction), the risks get higher, because ARIN knows (or at
>>> least has a strong indication) that you are underutilized.
>> 
>> In spite of John's claims to the contrary, I actually believe that ARIN should
>> begin performing random reviews as time permits and should certainly
>> be looking for resources that appear to have a pattern of un/under-
>> utilization.
> 
> Any serious attempt to reclaim resources is going to result in a
> lawsuit.  A /16 appears, based on a recent transaction, to be worth
> over half a million dollars.  If ARIN tries to reclaim an unused /16,
> the holder is likely to be willing to litigate the matter.
> 

In the case of space covered by an RSA, bring it on... They signed a contract recognizing that they have no property rights and that resources are registered to them in accordance with policy and can be reclaimed in accordance with policy and should be returned if they no longer meet the policy requirements.

LRSA is different I. This regard.

Those with no agreement, it re,Ainsley to be seen how a court would rule. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that a court is likely to rule that ARIN cannot control its own registration database according to its policies.

> Even if you think ARIN would be successful in court, and that it's
> worth the probably 7 figures it would cost them to prevail against a
> well-funded opponent, the litigation would likely drag out well past
> the point (if your predictions of IPv6 migration are correct) at which
> IPv4 space will be largely irrelevant.  (And, let's be clear: the
> opponent will likely be well-funded, because there are a lot of
> entities out there that would have an interest in preventing the
> precedent that would be set by an ARIN victory.)
> 

First, I'm suggesting this be primarily against RSA signatories with unutilized resources. I doubt that could lead to protracted litigation given the clear contract language.

Second, yes, I think ARIN would not only prevail, but, likely have a good shot at summary judgment.

> (I realize ARIN has reclaimed resources in the past, mostly for fraud.
> That's different.  Those getting addresses by fraud are in a much
> weaker legal position, and a precedent that ARIN can reclaim resources
> that were obtained fraudulently doesn't create problems for those
> looking to monetize (or just keep for future use) underutilized
> resources that were not obtained fraudulently.  Going after
> organizations for mere non-use (or underutilization) is fundamentally
> different.)

If an organization is making a good faith effort to transfer the addresses through 8.3, then I would not support an effort by ARIN to reclaim. I have said this several times.

If, OTOH, the organization is simply sitting on them hoping they will appreciate in value, I would very much prefer that the risk of reclamation serve as a motivator to make the addresses available to those with need sooner rather than later.

I believe the useful life of a transfer market will be relatively short. I believe that making provisions for treating IP address holdings as a longer term speculation is damaging to the Internet.

> 
>>> ARIN hasn't made a practice of doing that, and I agree with John's
>>> statement that they aren't likely to start doing that. 
>> 
>> John's statement wasn't that they aren't likely to start doing so. John's
>> statement was that he did not feel that they should start doing so.
>> John and I disagree in this area and I think at the end of the day
>> as scarcity becomes more of an issue, there will be more pressure
>> from the community to change John's position on this. John answers
>> to the board. The board answers to the members.
> 
> To be clear, you think ARIN should, in general, start going after
> underutilized resources, or you think they should specifically target
> those who list them for transfer.  (I agree that if ARIN does start
> doing it, listing them for transfer shouldn't be an automatic
> exemption.  My question, though, is whether you think the criteria ARIN
> uses for deciding whom to audit should favor the selection of
> organizations who have resources listed for sale.)
> 
>     -- Brett

I think they should start going after them in general. I think they should grant those listed for transfer the same six monthngrace that is afforded others under section 12. If itnis a good faith effort to complete a transfer, that should be sufficient time in most cases. I also support giving staff leeway to allow additional time if in their judgment the organization is continuing to work in good faith to comply with policy. This is also specified in section 12.

What I don't wNt to see ARIN do is create an environment where you can list a block for sale for 10-100x market price and claim an exemption from policy because you are "trying to monetize" the block.

Owen