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

[Chris Grundemann]

Hi Avri,

Thanks for posting! Yours is a unique opinion (at least in my 5 or so
years of reading PPML) and as such I greatly value learning more about
your viewpoint, if you'd be kind enough to elaborate a bit. My
questions are inline, below.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with regards to those resources at all.  I recognize neither your authority to force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment in time or not, does not seem relevant.

Can you tell me who assigned your (or are you speaking for an
organization?) "legacy" resources (who is "those who came before" ARIN
in this case specifically)? Can you also tell us what the terms of
that registration where/are in your eyes? Was there any contract or
agreement of any kind involved?

> If I trusted ARIN and found its services of value, I would sign. But neither of those is the case, hence, I haven't.

First, when you say you do not trust ARIN, do you mean the ARIN
community, or ARIN the organization? In either case, why is it that
you do not trust ARIN? Is there a specific action or instance that
lead to this mistrust? A trend that provoked it?

Second, can you expound on what you mean when you say that you do not
find ARINs services of value? Do you not find value in ensuring the
uniqueness of the addresses assigned to you? Or perhaps you are being
more technically specific and you do not find value in WHOIS and RDNS
(in-addr.arpa records)?

Thanks in advance for your candid reply!

Cheers,
~Chris


> avri
>
>
> Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 6/18/12, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm
>>
>>Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an
>>"abnormal" situation.
>>They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should.
>>
>>After the 31 December expiration date of the LRSA offer,  the policy
>>should say must have a signed RSA.
>>
>>> concerned about that level of a change.  And that there is an
>>> implication that this should happen within 3 month.
>>
>>I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time
>>frame,
>>for resources that are being utilized  by the organization that the
>>legacy
>>registry assigned resources to.
>>
>>However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned
>>resources to be reclaimed by ARIN.
>>
>>> ===============================================
>>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>>--
>>-JH
>>_______________________________________________
>>PPML
>>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com