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

[Chris Engel]

> Hi Chris,
> 
> I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE
> legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without
> any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel.

Mike,

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how that translates into an exception being "legally transferable". The exception exists as a status granted by a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION as to which of it's internal policies apply to a given entity and how they apply. It's my understanding that NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS can pretty much do whatever they like in terms of setting their internal policies and the granting or withholding of statuses to members absent a court order to the contrary. Was there some sort of injunctive relief provided by the Court ordering ARIN to do something with it's database listings for that space in contravention to it's policies?

Theoretically, ARIN could create a policy that you and only you must submit your needs justification in iambic pentameter in order to apply for a transfer of registration within it's listings, and unless a Court specifically instructs ARIN not to do so, it's entirely within ARIN's prerogative to enforce said requirement.

In any event, my purpose was really more to discuss the rationale behind WHY things like "Grandfather Clauses" exist and why they prove useful under certain circumstances and try to relate it to the situation with legacy space.

Specifically,  I can see perfectly well why it's useful for ARIN to not try to force entities to RETROACTIVELY do needs justifications for space they ALREADY had obtained before needs justifications requirements were enacted, even though all new allocations from that point forward required needs justification.

I can see perfectly well why it's useful for ARIN to not retract registrations from entities that don't have a signed agreements with ARIN because they obtained their space before ARIN was founded, even though all new registrations from that point forward required signing an agreement.

In  both cases the disruption that might be caused by not listing those allocations was far more harmful then simply recognizing that such space was already allocated and letting the allocation stand without a signed agreement or needs justification on record for it.

In the case of on going transfers, ARIN already has to update it's records for that space to reflect the transfer, what's gained by allowing the transferee to go through a different process then it would have to if it were receiving non-legacy space?


In terms of legal status, since ARIN has a Legal Council, I assume they have a well defined process for handling situations where a Court ruling would invalidate an existing policy or administrative procedure. So if that's happened here, I'm guessing John would have informed us about it.




Christopher Engel 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at iptrading.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:55 PM
> To: Chris Engel; 'Milton L Mueller'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for
> NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources
> 
> >Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds
> >it
> 
> >If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial
> >in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe
> >that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing
> >another run at it?
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE
> legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without
> any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel.
> 
> Secondly, I watched this presentation at NANOG54, but couldn't tell what the
> temperature in the room was towards treating legacy addresses as property.
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/presentations/Monday/NANOG
> _54_02_Keynote_ipv4.wmv
> 
> My feeling is that maybe it is time for another run at removing the needs
> test for legacy transfers, as the last run was an attempt to remove the
> needs test from all transfers, not just legacy.
> 
> Regards and pardon the interruption,
> 
> Mike Burns
> 
>