[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements - revised

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Larry Ash <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:
>
> It seams to me that we will be continually besieged with these proposals
> until
> we formulate and adopt a policy that in short says:
>
> If you received your direct allocation after Dec 22, 1997 no matter what the
> method
> or circumstances, are located within the ARIN footprint, and did not, or
> have not,
> a) signed a RSA or LRSA and b) justified the need for those addresses;
> then the addresses are subject to revocation and reassignment. Period
>
> I trust that this would have to be adjudicated but I also trust that ARIN's
> legal
> staff are astute enough to choose the case with the greatest chance of
> success and
> that they would prevail. In at least the case of IPV4, there is clearly an
> argument
> that some type of governance for number assignment is required and just
> refusing to
> submit to that governance because: I don't feel I should have to, doesn't
> seem like a
> winning argument. (Obviously IMNAL.)
>
> Needless to say I don't support the proposal and am tired of the argument
> associated
> with it. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Lindsey but I thought that the list
> made it's
> wishes clear before.


I am relatively new to ppml, (only about a year or two), but...

It does not sem to me that you are accurately reflecting either the
discussions I have seen on list (or at least, the major
consensus-groups I have seen on list, as there is no unified
consensus), nor the wider community consensus groups.  The absolutist
"or else" position seems by a large majority to be felt to either be
outright wrong, or sufficiently risky that it's highly unwise.

It seems to me that encouraging legacy number assignees to keep their
paperwork status up to date is a good thing, and ultimately neutral in
other policy discussions.  It does not finally resolve the "what do we
do with legacy numbers" problem, but at least helps administrative and
operational recordkeeping.  Having records indicating a now-defunct
assignee where a successor legitimately exists and is known doesn't
help anyone.  People use these records operationally, all the time,
trying to get in touch with each other over issues.

Certainly there are legitimate policy issues, but one of the policy
issues is that the bits have to keep flowing, and the people who have
to keep bits flowing needs to have data about other people and
endpoints.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com