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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated
> address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool
> necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for
> those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already
> allocated blocks.

Agreed.

> That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's
> interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated
> resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain
> minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address
> blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in
> the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a
> whole to impose such requirements. 

Yes, but I am pretty sure they're wrong, and that it is only a matter of time before those opinions, which are based on nostalgia, inertia and faulty economics and law, change. 
The real question is whether ARIN anticipates changes and is pro-active, or whether it is forced into action by external events. 
The answer to that question is pretty obvious, so far. 
The ARIN "community" is happy with where it is now and repeatedly waits until action is forced on it by external developments.

I fully understand why this happens. 
I fully understand that many people on this list sincerely believe that it is unfair or unwise to afford legacy holders transferable property rights. 

But by refusing to act, they are simply inviting a game of chicken, in which one legacy holder chooses to sell outside its process and ARIN retaliates by refusing to alter its whois records. 
At that point the staff will scramble, as it did on the Nortel deal, and we will have this discussion again, only you will have fewer options because you will be in react rather than pro-act mode. 

> Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in
> is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for
> entities who acquire  address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address
> holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address
> holders. 

Does it? I honestly thought we were just debating a definition. I know that people are reading what you say into it, but it wouldn't be the first time that waving the red flag of markets and property got list members diverted from the topic at hand. E.g., every person who has spoken out against this proposed definition has made it clear that they do so not because they disagree with the definition of legacy but because they don't want to allow legacy holders to make transfers outside of ARIN.