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

[Kevin Kargel]

Matthew,
Once again we are entering into a round of discussion where people are
forgetting where the "legacy" spaceholders came from.  They were on the spot
as the internet was getting started and they were the ones that jumped in
with time and people and resources to develop and experiment and get things
working.  The internet we have today is precisely because of all the good
work of the "legacy" spaceholders. 

When they were granted their space it was given to them at a time when there
was space in abundance, and nobody was worried about how much space anybody
had.  They were granted rights to their space without limit or restriction.

Now that space is becoming at all valuable the vultures are circling and
forgetting the origins of what we have.  The common refrain is "What have
you done for me lately" of "I want a free piece of the pie and I don't want
to have to work for it".

We all still owe the "legacy" holders a debt of gratitude and all of this
nipping at their heels late in the game is rather sad. The whole "What have
you done for me lately" philosophy does none of us any credit. 

And no, I am not a legacy holder nor do I have any affiliations with a
legacy holder.  I do admire and respect all of the good works done by these
pioneers of the internet.  

Turning the IP space in to a free for all without restrictions or controls
is a really bad idea, unless one's only concern is just to turn a quick buck
while one can and one has no concern for the future.  If that's what we want
to do then lets just divvy up what's left as one recent proposal suggested
and be done with it.  If we remove all need requirements then I hereby
request all the space that's left. Finding the finances to do it would not
be a problem. 

OK, I'll step down off my soap box again and let you all have at it.



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Petach
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:26 PM
> To: Jo Rhett
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification
> 
> 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...
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120227/dc04706f/attachment.bin>