[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

[Lindsey, Marc]

Donald - Thank you.

John - I do recognize the difference between staff operational processes intended to implement policy and policy.  However, I disagree that my definition as proposed (including the second criteria) is not the proper subject matter for policy discussion.  

It seems to me that legacy numbers should not lose their status as legacy numbers unless they are intentionally returned by the rightful holder to an RIR or another historic number authority to be re-allocated by an RIR or other number authority to another registrant under RSA (or equivalent). I suspect further tweaking of the language may be required to capture the desirable "release/return" permutations and others may disagree with my premise, but this really is a policy question.  David Farmer's point, which I acknowledge as a good one, is that it may be too much policy to include in a definition.  My best, though maybe not compelling, counter to his point is that there is always a little policy/substance in important definitions.  

I gather from your comments that you're concerned that requiring specific formalities (like a contract or written consent, which by the way, can be in electronic form) to perfect releases/returns of legacy numbers to ARIN (or another number authority) might render some prior returns/releases ineffective, and unsettle ARIN's authority to re-allocate those numbers.  

Given the implications, I believe releases/returns of this sort should, as a matter of policy -- not just operational process, be supported by documentation validating the release/return. Without this, there is a risk that prior returns not properly documented will be challenged by the original registrant or its successors or assigns (whether or not my proposed definition is adopted). 

Yet adoption of my proposed definition by itself would not render prior returns ineffectual, and would not establish specific processes ARIN staff must employ to accept returns of legacy numbers to replenish the pool. Only future substantive policy changes, changes in staff operational processes, or court orders/decisions are likely to do that.  

Marc Lindsey 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:28 PM
To: <admin at directcolocation.com> <admin at directcolocation.com>
Cc: Lindsey, Marc; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:50 PM, <admin at directcolocation.com>  <admin at directcolocation.com> wrote:

> I for one like seeing input like this on here as it give anyone that 
> may have an interest in seeing a different point of view that may not 
> be seen if submitted thru the suggestion process, as I have a ton of 
> work to keep up with already trying to keep up with all of this and 
> considering that fact that Marc has a background in the legal area it 
> may give all of us insight as to other ways to get things done in a more expeditious way.
> 
> This is of course considering the fact the community would like to 
> avoid any possible legal issues that could arise from any omission of 
> possibilities that may exist in which a Legacy holder may have 
> performed some sort of transaction prior to all the language that is 
> trying to be placed upon the original legacy holder (or its legal 
> successor or assign) after the fact.
> 
> If we allow this to be done then the potential for expensive legal 
> battles may ensue in the future in which the original legacy holder 
> (or its legal successor or assign) would do if placed in a situation 
> that may harm there Legacy IPV4 future status or rights, considering 
> that as we know it, to date IPV6 is not the end all solution to the 
> IPV4 depletion issue at this time, and if it was, then I am sure none 
> of these type messages would even be a topic of the community.
> 
> So I personally am applauding Marc's efforts here and do think it is 
> important to make sure the attempt to get it right as I am not an 
> attorney and do not want to try to be one, so thank you Marc for your 
> input and trying to help in anyway you can from the knowledge you 
> offer the community on this input.

Donald - 
 
 I suggested Marc use the suggestion process only because he appeared  to be suggesting changes to ARIN's operational procedures rather than  actual number resource policy.  Note that all suggestions received  are visible and available for comment in the suggestion process, and  there was no intent of minimizing the ability for community input on  his suggestions.  I do believe that the community should discuss what  standard should be used in the return of blocks going forward, but  that might be a different question than the present topic of defining  legacy address space.  This is particularly true because address blocks  in the early days of the Internet via a variety of means (including by  phone, fax, and email) and we cannot redefine the processes in the past  (e.g. those used by Jon or SRI-NIC) via definitions in the present day.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN