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

[David Farmer]

On 6/20/12 17:40 CDT, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> That may well be correct,  but I have yet to ever see any holder of
>> legacy assigned resources show  a copy of an invoice, check stub,  a
>> signed contract,  or papers of any kind
>> that show any consideration was made  to the legacy registry in
>> exchange  for the service of   creating a network number, database
>> entry,  contact directory listing,   and returning of an allocation
>> handle.
>
> I have, and not only that I've had to go through that process with 3 of
> the 5 operating registries within the last 12 months.
>
>> Let alone an agreement for an ongoing service of retaining and
>> maintaining that database entry or contact listing for an unspecified
>> period of time.
>
> It's funny, because ARIN is the only region in which this is fought. The
> other registries don't put up with this nonsense. You want to be listed
> in their registry, you play by the rules.

APNIC has a policy, RIPE and LACNIC have info on their websites not sure 
if it is policy or not, I assume it is procedure at least. I couldn't 
find anything for AfriNIC, anyone have a pointer for them?

http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space/legacy-space-faqs
http://lacnic.net/en/legacy-r.html

I will point out that ARIN has many more Legacy registration than the 
other RIRs, I think many more than all the other RIRs combined.  The 
central registry handled registration for North America for a longer 
period of time, especially during the crazy growth of the mid '90s, and 
there was more early growth in North America too. RIPE and APNIC started 
up during the mid '90s and prompted the creation of the RIR system.  In 
some ways ARIN was late to the party.

I don't think forcing Legacy holders to sign contracts is a good things, 
it doesn't build trust of the Legacy Resource holders.  The LRSA should 
continue to be offered and especially large legacy resource holders that 
expect to keep using their resources should consider signing one. 
Continually threatening to recover and/or audit resources is counter 
productive and also doesn't build trust, in fact it is corrosive to 
trust.  Don't take the bait. ARIN is only effective if it the has the 
trust of all resource holders.

However, there is a minority of legacy resource holders and possibly a 
few consumers of resources (I'm not sure on that one) that want to 
leverage the lack of contracts into the idea that legacy resource 
holders don't have to follow any rules, this is equally corrosive to 
trust in the other direction.

Milton has been saying this is a game of chicken, the more I think about 
it, there is a way more complicated game theory model going on here, if 
game theory even actually applies, as there are external players in the 
game like judges, and many many players.  So, I'm not sure what it is, 
but it not the simple two player game of chicken.


-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================