[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification
jrhett at netconsonance.com
Mon Feb 27 16:02:26 EST 2012
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> 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.
On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> 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.
As I said above, please provide explicit examples of situations where legacy holders have not been subject to the same rules as others for new assignments.
> 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 believe that this is the issue in question. For my opinion, I believe that ARIN should be involved and that the same policies should be applied to all new allocations, be they allocations or transfers. To me, any reassignment is an allocation.
> 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
This is all very old topic. Please review the mailing list archives for extensive debate of this topic.
> 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?
Very simple: ARIN was tasked with policies for allocation, and has not been given authority or direction to review existing allocations. If you want a new block, you get it from ARIN one way or the other. What you do with your block is not something ARIN has control over, until you want to acquire more space. This is very common in many other industries.
> 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.
You seem to misunderstand some of the basic issues involved here. I would suggest reading the documents which created ARIN, and the policy documents which have since guided ARIN's direction. In doing so you will understand the nature of things that ARIN does control and does not control, and significant, has legal ability to control and does not have legal ability to control. Obviously this is an evolving situation, but you really should become acquainted with the history.
> The reason I'm wrestling with that, …. I'll fight tooth and nail to eliminate arbitrary segregation and discrimination like that.
I'm really not trying to be snarky, but you are proposing to fight tooth and nail over something you haven't learned enough to understand. You appear to lack basic comprehension of the issues here. A very good thing for you to understand would be the nouns involved -- what they are, and how they relate. Arguing about whether this or that verb is something ARIN can control is much easier to understand when the nouns make sense to you.
> 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.
This has already happened, several times. Review of mailing list history will illuminate much.
> first to figure out which side ARIN is on;
ARIN is a membership-run organization whose policy is defined on this very mailing list.
> 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?
Google is your friend. But perhaps more importantly, the RSA and LRSA are good reading material here. This is all very old topics worked out a long time ago. There are of course divergent opinions, but what stance ARIN takes on this topic is very well described in the RSA and LRSA documents themselves.
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML