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

[John Santos]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
> 
> > if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which
> > reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use
> > address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all
> > ears, please regale me.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of
> this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in
> a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN
> holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the
> proposed definition because of that.

This is a strawman.  That is not the only or even the common reason why
at least some people oppose this proposal.  1) It codifies practices and
applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous
practice, in that requires a written agreement.  2) It extends the scope
ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation.  3) It
ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an understanding
between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the addresses were
to be used for network numbering and management, were issued on a needs
basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the holder's needs
changed.  See the template we needed to fill out in order to receive our
initial legacy assignment back in the early 1990s.  (I only have this on
paper so can't link to it.)

The "definition" in this proposal is actually policy in sheep's clothing.

Opposed.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539