[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification

[Matthew Petach]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> There's nothing unfair in the right; what is unfair is that the
> rights are not being applied equally to everyone within the
> ARIN purview.  I'm advocating that we either apply the rules
> equally to *everyone*, or apply them to no-one.  The current
> "have" and "have-not" scenario is a ludicrous parody of
> medieval fiefdoms.
>
> Can you be specific about how you see the rules not being fairly applied? Do
> you see ARIN giving new blocks to some segment of its clients by a different
> criteria than it provides new blocks to others?  Please be specific.

I see ARIN equally applying the rules to all the serfs coming to apply
for a plot of land, while turning a blind eye to the large country estates
all around.

If we consider ARINs clients to be *only* those who fall under the
needs-based justification rules, then ARIN is indeed being fair and
equitable among them; but if that is our definition of the ARIN
clientele, then the legacy holders are explicitly not among the
ARIN clientele, and should be free to engage in whatever market
buying and selling of address space they have, free and clear of
any ARIN involvement.

If, however, the claim is made that the legacy holders are part
and parcel of the ARIN clientele...then clearly, no the same rules
are not being applied to everyone.  We need to either explicitly
exclude the legacy blocks from all ARIN control, in which case
those blocks are free and clear to transfer as deemed economically
viable; or, we need to clearly state that the legacy blocks are
part and parcel of the ARIN clientele and subject to all the same
rules and restrictions in terms of determined need justification
for the resources.


> I am only asking because all of your commentary to date has to do with
> providers who already have large blocks, and that's not the business that
> ARIN's membership has asked it to perform.  I have seen and supported
> numerous proposals for ARIN to review and audit existing allocations for
> compliance, and these proposals have always failed.  Thus ARIN has been
> explicitly told by its members that it is not a policing body.  Therefore it
> can only apply these policies when handing out *new* allocations. (be they
> transferred blocks or not).

If the block is handed out not by ARIN, but by a legacy holder,
should ARIN's rules still apply?  Fundamentally, does ARIN  have
any right to limit the ability of someone to purchase address rights
from an entity that has thus far not been explicitly acknowledged
to be a part of ARIN's constituency?

I'm struggling with this notion that ARIN has any leg to stand
on with respect to limiting the buying and selling of address block
rights in an  open market from people that they have eschewed
any control over thus far.  How can ARIN take a hands-off stance
for the blocks as long as they stay in legacy-holders hands, but
the moment a non-legacy holder wishes to purchase a block,
suddenly ARIN has rights to limit that transaction?

If a legacy holder (that ARIN seems to feel it has no rights to
control or limit) sells the block to a buyer in a different region,
and that region has no needs-based restriction, would there
be any reason not to allow the transfer?  Or would ARIN
suddenly leap out of its seat, and decide that it needed to
engage and interfere in control over a block it had heretofore
decided existed outside the range of its rules and requirements?

I genuinely don't know the answer to that, by the way.

If ARIN truly does take a hands-off view of the non RSA/LRSA
signatories, then that transfer should happen unopposed.
If ARIN *doesn't* allow the transfer, then it would be claiming
it has control over blocks that it had previously claimed it
did not have control over.

The reason I'm wrestling with that, is if we grant special
status for transfers to one set of v4 rights holders, but
not others, we've created a discriminatory marketplace,
and I'll fight tooth and nail to eliminate arbitrary
segregation and discrimination like that.

On the other hand, if ARIN interferes equally in all transfers,
even those from non-signatories to other non-ARIN entities,
it would indicate ARIN considers *all* blocks within the
region to be under its control and auspices, *even those
held by parties that have not signed an RSA/LRSA*--and
I suspect that will irk a different subset of the readers.


> If I am reading your complain correctly, it would appear that your main
> complaint has nothing to do with this transfer policy and everything to do
> with the old and much-argued complaint about historical allocations.  If so,
> I would argue that none of your concerns are made any better or worse by the
> proposed transfer policy, and that your concerns should be addressed by a
> new policy that very explicitly addresses review of historical allocations.

The transfer policy is acting as litmus test for the scope of ARIN
control over address resources; at the heart of the matter, I think
it may come down to a court case between a legacy holder wishing
to sell IP space to a high bidder outside the ARIN region, and ARIN's
legal counsel, if ARIN tries to interfere in the sale.

I'm somewhat hoping that I can delve deeply enough here on the list
first to figure out which side ARIN is on; do they consider legacy
holders to be completely outside their domain if they haven't signed
an RSA/LRSA, or do they consider them to be somehow implicitly
under ARIN control even with no signed agreement?
If they're *not* under ARIN control if they haven't signed an RSA/LRSA,
there should be nothing stopping them from selling address blocks
outside the ARIN region, as ARIN would have no control over either
the seller or the buyer.
If ARIN *does* try to enforce needs-based justification on the transfer,
they can't do it based on the purchaser if they're outside the region;
they could only do it based on some assertion of control over the
resource, even in the absence of an RSA/LRSA; and if they're
going to assert that level of control, I would demand they equally
assert *all* restrictions and regulations that are applied to the
rest of the membership.

>  For what it is worth, I would totally support this policy however I suspect
> ARIN doesn't have the legal authority on which to enforce this.  And, as
> past discussion has proven, this would be extremely unpopular.

Ending discrimination is seldom popular among the privileged
ones who benefit from the discrimination, you are quite correct.   :)

> --
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and
> other randomness
>

Thanks!

Matt
leaping astride Rocinante once again, lance at the ready...