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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
>> -----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. 

No matter how many different ways you say this, the reality is that just because we don't agree with you does not make us wrong. Continuing to say otherwise over and over doesn't make it accurate.

> 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.

As a general rule, when you are faced with a good situation and some chance that it could turn bad, you seek to do whatever you can to keep the situation good and do not seek to accelerate turning it bad. As such, yes, I agree with you about your last sentence. We do not seek to apply bad policies to number resources until we are forced to do so by external developments. I do, however, find it interesting that you appear to be claiming this is a bad thing.

> 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. 

Not at all. They have the same transferable property rights as any other resource holder.

> 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. 

Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled, intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in contravention of it's community developed policies.

>> 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.  

There are two proposals being debated. Proposal 171 contains the carve-out special exemption, it isn't really part of 172. However, the wording in 172 definitely expands the scope of that carve-out and serves as an adjunct to it.

Owen