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

[David Farmer]

On 6/16/12 12:09 CDT, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:54 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy
>> Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become
>> policy in the NRPM.
>
> I can not disagree with you more David.
>
> Mainly because there is no such thing as "legacy resources." There are
> legacy resource holders and it has become common for some folks to
> refer to the resources allocated or assigned to them to be called
> legacy, but there is nothing (not one thing) special or different
> about those resources.

Actually, it is neither a property of a resource or a resource holder 
independently. Legacy status a property of both a resource and its 
resource holder together, it is the relationship of the two that has 
legacy status.

New resources can be assigned to a resource holder that has legacy 
resources without the new resources having legacy status. A legacy 
resources may be transferred to a new resources holder (through 8.3) 
without the new resources holder having legacy status. Neither of these 
would be true if the resource or the resource holder interdependently 
held legacy status.  This is because legacy status is a property of the 
relationship between a resources and the resource holder, and of neither 
independently.

However, I contend that when a resource holder updates its name or 
changes its ownership through (through a 8.2 transfer) the relationship 
between the resource and the resource holder is not changed and 
therefore the legacy status is maintained.

> The fact that the registrant does not have a
> contract is potentially a double-edged sword for the resource holder
> but again, imparts no special qualities to the resources themselves.

I contend that while many legacy resources are not covered under a 
formal agreement (LRSA or RSA contract) all resources are are covered 
under an agreement between the resource holder and the registry that 
assigned them. In the case of many legacy resources this is an informal 
agreement between the resource holder and a predecessor registry of 
ARIN, for which ARIN is the legal successor.

> Also, we have been asked several times by the community at large to
> stop mucking with IPv4 policy. Since there is no one arguing that
> there is "legacy" IPv6 under any definition, I see no reason to muddle
> about here, regardless of the definition of "legacy."

At one level I agree, however, this really isn't new policy, it is 
properly documenting current practice and dealing with an issue we have 
created by writing what should be a policy statement into contract.  I 
believe we have mistakenly crated a situation where parts of policy 
don't apply to some resources base on a contract terms.  I've recently 
come to believe this is a problem and dangerous.  I think the solution 
is to define Legacy Resources in policy clearly and move the policy 
"Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use"  into 
the NRPM, along with other supporting policies that are needed to make 
it work the way we want it to.

Technically, if we transition ARIN to a new organization or radically 
change IPv6 policy we may have a legacy IPv6 situation in the future. 
So how with deal with legacy resources could matter even for IPv6 in the 
future.  I hope it is unlikely, but it not impossible.


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================