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

[Astrodog]

On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Opposed as written.
>
> The good parts of this proposal are effectively a no-op.
>
> Section 2 is overreaching and invalidates many past returns in  a
> way likely to b harmful to multiple parties.
>
> This would create a new and undesirable ability to preserve legacy
> status of resources through a transfer.
>
> Owen
>
>

Also opposed as written.

It seems like a much simpler definition such as, "Allocated number
resources which are not governed by an agreement between the resource
holder and an RIR." makes more sense than trying to come up with this
sort of specific definition. How, exactly, someone ended up in that
state doesn't seem like it should be a factor. In the case of returned
"legacy" blocks, how the entity elects to perform that transfer seems
like it would be largely irrelevant. ARIN has no obligation to provide
them with any services whatsoever, but does because providing those
services is significantly more useful for everyone than not. If an
authorized party at the entity calls John and says "Hey, we aren't using
these anymore. Feel free to put them in the free pool.", nothing should
prohibit ARIN from accepting the resources. At that point, those
resources are transferred. If there's some condition attached to
returning them, then, absolutely, a written agreement should probably be
in place... but in the case of someone just "giving" them away, that
process should be as easy as possible.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very
clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not
guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with
the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort
basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved.

Resources not covered by an agreement, but utilized by an organization
could, if the RIRs were so inclined, be allocated elsewhere. Such a
policy would certain cause huge legal and operational headaches, but
does not appear to be prohibited. There is no agreement between the RIR
and the legacy holder. Neither party "owes" anything to the other. The
RIRs' simply record the registration information as a convenience for
the community and the legacy holder.

--- Harrison