[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry

[Blecker, Christoph]

There have been, very literally, volumes written on this proposal in the last few days. I think unfortunately as a result, some of the message is getting lost in semantics.

It's worth noting that this proposal makes no change to the way that ARIN and this community is operating today. It's just a clarification/codification of that current operating standard. There is no attack against legacy holders going on. The reality is, for the internet to work different entities (corporate, education, government, private, public, etc) all need to work together. Yes, we all have different interests, but that is why we are having such lively discussion. Similarly heated discussions go on in many other internet governance forums, all with many different competing interests as well.

Again, bringing things back to the reality of the situation, it's completely counterproductive for the ARIN community to start a war on legacy holders. It's not something that I have any reasonable believe will happen. The idea that is being addressed and clarified by this proposal (and one that I fundamentally support) is that there is no such thing as a "policy-free zone". Nobody is trying to strip legacy holders of their space. We are just saying that if any address space holder (legacy or not) wants to play ball with the rest of the internet, you can't just go off in a corner and do whatever you want. Some reasons behind these policies are technical. Some are organizational. Some just promote fairness and a level playing field.

No, unless there is a contract signed between an entity and ARIN, ARIN has little recourse if a legacy holder decides that they don't want to comply with policies. However, ARIN doesn't have to return the favour of updating their registry either. It's like if one network decided they wanted to advertise their whole IPv4 network as individual /32s, there is nothing stopping them from doing that. Except that if they want to peer (paid or otherwise) with another network there is no obligation for that network to actually accept those routes (and in most cases, will drop them like third period French). That's why there are conventions and understandings between all the different networks out on the internet, that allow all of us to work together.

I think it's completely fair to say (and that's how ARIN has been operating up till this point) that if you want to play ball and have nice things like up-to-date entries in the registry, as well as the other services that ARIN provides (such as RDNS and in the future things like RPKI) that you have to play by the same rules as everybody else. *Or even better*, that if you don't like a rule participate in a forum like this to get it changed. But just in the same way that you can't pick and choose which laws you want to respect (or else society would break down), you can't pick and choose which internet governance policies you want to respect (or else the internet as we know it today would break down).

Just some things that have been going through my mind while reading all this.

Cheers, 

--
Christoph Blecker
The University of British Columbia


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: June-21-12 12:42 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All
> Resources in the Registry
> 
> I have only been a full-fledged member of this community for a couple of
> months.  This is the first post I have ever made to this community forum.
> It has been very interesting reading all of the email generated by this
> community on various subjects.  I am not sure what all of the "rules" are
> that have been set up before me, but if one does not already exist, I would
> ask that one be set up that states that all submissions be of a clear
> constructive nature and be in a constructive format - and provide the
> reason(s) why a member advocates a particular position or change plus the
> benefit to all.  Certainly some submissions do exactly this but some do not
> and the ones that do not are mostly a waste of everyone's time for anyone
> who cares to follow this community.
> 
> I am also one of those rebellious "Legacy" Internet Address holders as I got
> a /24 for myself on 3/14/1994.  At that time I routinely got Class C
> Internet addresses assigned for my clients.  I'm guessing that over the
> years there have been probably tens of thousands of emails concerning
> "Legacy" IP Block holders and blocks submitted in this community.  I don't
> expect that my little email will change much but I'll throw my two cents in
> and see if anybody is interested.
> 
> I have always thought that my little Class C address block had value even in
> the years I was not using it.  I parked it at an ISP I know to hold it and
> they used it for their purposes when I wasn't using it.  I know it actually
> does have value because I have had several offers to buy it - all of which I
> turned down.  I'm guessing the value will go up as IPv4 block are further
> restricted by ARIN policy or a real shortage.  I consider it an asset
> because I could make a phone call today and get a check for it.  I still
> have all of the documentation from 1994 from the InterNIC including the
> application they faxed me and my submission letter and the letter they
> mailed me via USPS confirming my assignment of my Class C.  I pulled them
> all out today and read them all.  The application was 3 pages long and the
> letter they sent me back was a half of a page.  Nowhere in that
> documentation does it say that I don't own this block and nowhere does it
> say I can't transfer it at will under my terms.  In fact it does not mention
> anywhere that there is any other legal agreement of any kind that was part
> of the transaction of getting the block assigned to me.  Therefore I read
> this in the broadest possible way and feel I can do anything reasonable with
> it if I choose to including sell it if I want.  This is an unforeseen
> benefit of being an early Internet adopter and I feel I did my part albeit
> small to help the Internet grow.
> 
> So here we are in 2012.  I decided to build a data center providing Internet
> services to my customers.  I called my friend up at the ISP and told him I
> needed my block back and installed a Metro-E line and am now using my block
> to service customers.  I made the business decision that I needed to provide
> my customers with full BGP redundancy and got onto ARIN's web site and
> forked over the money to get my ASN number and was assigned one after I
> proved I needed it.  I also decided that the time had come to offer my
> customers IPv6 and I made the business decision to fork over the money to
> get my IPv6 /32 block so I could do that.  (I am surprised to see that the
> number of IPv6 blocks ARIN sells each month is only about 40 - guess I am an
> early adopter again or maybe they are too expensive.)  It is my opinion that
> that the cost for the ASN number was reasonable and that the cost for the
> IPv6 was quite high for a company of my size.  I know the IPv6 prices have
> been somewhat reduced to entice folks to switch from IPv4 but my opinion is
> still my opinion that they are too high.  Lowering the cost even more might
> increase IPv6 utilization faster.  I'm guessing the AT&T's of the world and
> all the other folks who have Class A addresses might not find it so high
> because of their deep pockets - but I did.
> 
> I didn't bother to read the legalese that came along with both of these
> purchases as it doesn't really matter if I agree with them or not.  I can't
> change them (as I'm too small to have any clout) and the only way I could
> get an ASN number and an IPv6 block from ARIN was to accept their legalese
> and pay their fee.  It is possible that the ASN number purchase put my
> "Legacy" block under agreement with ARIN but since I didn't read the
> legalese I don't really know.  I don't actually care that much if it did but
> if I had my druthers I would prefer to keep my little Class C in legacy
> status  - especially if it is free to do so.
> 
> I've been told that ARIN has sent out numerous letters/emails to "Legacy"
> holders trying to convince us to sign an agreement with ARIN.  Oddly I've
> never received one even though my email address that IS listed with my Class
> C has never changed and still works.  Like any sales offer, if I received a
> request from ARIN I would read it and make a business decision and either do
> it or not based on what I think the best decision is for me.
> 
> Note that I tried to make a change in the company name for my block (as I
> changed our company name from Eclipse Computer to Eclipse Networks) and
> figured I'd go ahead and see if ARIN would do it.  They refused unless I
> provided them a bunch of documentation which I tried to do but gave up.
> Maybe their requests were 100% reasonable and maybe they were protecting me
> by requiring me to provide them stuff, but, nowhere on my paperwork from the
> InterNIC does it say I need to get approval from ARIN and conform to their
> policies to make that change.  For that matter, it doesn't even say I need
> to abide by the policies of the InterNIC either which is odd.  ARIN
> currently has a monopoly on the IP number database for North America so if I
> want to be listed I am essentially forced to go thru them for both new stuff
> (like I just did) and old stuff which predated them.  I'm not saying that is
> good or bad as I could easily make an argument for both.
> 
> When I read all of the email going thru this community - I see very clearly
> that most folks are doing just that - making business decisions on what they
> think is best for themselves or their customers.  I think doing this is part
> of human nature and I don't expect humans to do anything different unless
> they see some other good in it for them.  What is very clear in the short
> time I have been reading submissions in this community is that there will
> never be a consensus on what to do with the "Legacy" holders unless the
> "Legacy" holders are ALL part of the process - something that is probably
> not possible.  I have no way to tell when a comment made to this community
> is coming from a legacy holder or not - or a hybrid like me.
> 
> It appears to make some folks in this community VERY unhappy that they/we
> won't all conform and agree to be under an ARIN agreement and pay the
> corresponding fees.  Based on what I've seen in these community emails, I
> gather that some of those large Fortune 500 Legacy holders have chosen not
> to subject their very large IP blocks to ARINs authority by signing an
> agreement with ARIN.  Assuming they got the same or similar documentation
> from the InterNIC (or whatever/whoever preceded them) that I did - then I
> don't see any legal reason they must because the documentation and the
> assignment letter don't mention any legal framework that these block number
> assignments fall under and don't address this issue at all.   I'm not an
> attorney but I'm pretty sure that that makes the "Legacy" holders subject
> only to whatever is written in the application and assignment letter plus
> whatever applicable laws might apply to such an assignment.  Congress does
> have the power to pass a law overriding this and dictating how this all
> should be done but I'm guessing those large "Legacy" holders that have deep
> pockets also have the political clout and lobbyists to make that difficult
> for ARIN to achieve - not to mention the other countries ARIN serves.  Also
> it is quite possible that if ARIN's "community" decided to implement a
> significant policy that the large legacy holders severely don't like at all,
> like to refuse to list a large block that is sold outside of ARINs control,
> then they could gang up on ARIN  and pool there already considerable
> resources and probably win (one way or another) - giving ARIN a huge black
> eye and thus causing ARIN to be viewed as not fully legitimate.  I learned a
> long time ago that if elephants are tap dancing in your direction it is
> probably a good idea to get out of their way.  I'm guessing (to pick 3
> random companies for illustration purposes)  that Sprint, Ford, and GE could
> replicate the ARIN database function separately within a month or so and
> that they have enough clout and friendly CEO's of other fortune 500
> companies with IP blocks to create a competing registry which would be taken
> seriously by the rest of the Internet world because the rest of the world
> wants to do business with them too.  In the real world these CEO's vacation
> together and their wives are best friends.  To ignore the power of fortune
> 500 CEOs (and their wives) collectively is foolhardy.
> 
> Each interested party has their own agenda.  If I'm John Curran (and the
> board of directors) and I'm responsible to manage and administrate the ARIN
> organization then I would prefer all block holder be under a common
> agreement as that makes my job much easier and less costly to do and I would
> probably work towards that end.  (That is what I see is happening.)  If I'm
> a big "Legacy" block holder then I want to keep my costs down and free IP
> addresses are less costly than ones I have to pay for and unless ARIN can
> provide me something that offsets my costs with them and possibly makes me
> money - I'm not really interested in signing up with ARIN since I don't
> legally have to.  Their Legal issues are probably greatly reduced if they
> don't sign an agreement also.  If I'm a small "legacy" block holder (which I
> am), I definitely want to keep my costs down since I don't have deep pockets
> and free IP addresses are definitely better than paying for them.  If I'm
> someone who has one or more ASN number and publishes my managed addresses
> directly on the Internet then I want to make sure whatever process is used
> by others to obtain their IP addresses doesn't screw me and my customers up
> from utilizing the Internet.  Finally if I'm and end user I just want the
> Internet to work properly as fast and cheaply as possible.
> 
> I would also add that John Curran has the fiduciary responsibility of being
> the ARIN CEO and surely has been advised may times by the board of directors
> and legal counsel on the direction they are going.  When he participates in
> this forum his fiduciary duty is to further the ARIN mission and follow
> guidelines laid out by his board, his legal advisors and then this
> community.  It is obvious to me that there are just some things he cannot or
> should not say in this written community as a sharp attorney somewhere will
> pick it up and potentially use it for their own purposes which may be at
> odds with ARRINs state mission.  To that end I doubt he would come out and
> say definitively something like "ARIN has no legal right to manage the IP
> blocks that legacy holders have" - even if that is what he and his board and
> his legal advisors have concluded.  Obviously most of the members of this
> community are not privy to what is said in private behind closed doors.  I
> would also add that reading between the lines it appears that ARIN is
> striving to keep the peace with Legacy holders and provide them at least
> some service and that of course is positive for all - but I would add that
> an even more positive relationship is possible and desirable.
> 
> Based on the fact that everyone involved will want to continue making the
> business decisions they decide is best for themselves concerning these
> "Legacy" blocks, I think it is prudent for ARIN to make the best of a
> difficult situation.  The problem will slowly fix itself as IPv6 is adopted
> under ARIN agreements but I'm guessing that is ten years or so before IPv4
> isn't needed much anymore.  In the meantime, deciding to fight all of the
> "Legacy" holders isn't a winning proposition especially with the deep
> pockets and political clout out there - and the lack of a clearly
> enforceable agreement that has been successfully scrutinized by the courts.
> I see some folks advocating strongly in this community to reign in "legacy"
> holders - but no amount of Policies put in place by ARIN will ever solve
> this issue and it is futile for ARIN to create policies that a large
> percentage of the Internet "legacy" holders will just ignore.
> 
> I would propose that instead of fighting the "Legacy" holders, why doesn't
> ARIN just join them.  I don't know what the costs are for ARIN to conduct
> their mission and I don't know if the revenue they get now pays all of their
> bills or not.  I'm sure ARIN knows by now pretty much all of the issues that
> are keeping the "Legacy" holders from signing up.  Change the agreement that
> ARIN asks "Legacy" holders to sign and remove ALL of the obstacles and
> objections of the legacy holders.  Let the addresses be kept by them for
> free if they want, and let them transfer them if they want to for free or
> for a nominal administration charge, and remove all the reasons why they
> won't sign up now.  Make them ARIN's friends and let them be a significant
> part of and add their voices and expertise to this community.  I'll bet if
> reasonable optional fees were instituted, many would go ahead and pay them
> at least once.  As long as ARIN's expenses are met ongoing, and everybody is
> included - everybody wins.  All of the "legacy" holders were early adopters
> and helped in their own way to build and pay for the building of the
> Internet.  This is their compensation for that and therefore this is also
> fair to the folks who signed up with ARIN later on after the Internet was
> firmly established.  Then as IPv4 winds down and IPv6 winds up this problem
> just goes away and ARIN now has a lot more friends and a lot less
> adversaries.   I'm guessing I'm not the first to advocate doing this but in
> only two months being a member of this community, it is very obvious that
> this is the only solution that can ever work.
> 
> One last thing.  I'm guessing as folks read this their first inclination
> will be to pick this submission apart.  Most likely I am wrong about certain
> things I've written and I'm sure there are folks who would be happy to pick
> it apart point by point and point that out.  If that happens then the
> overall point of this submission has been missed!  It is OK if I'm wrong in
> places and it is OK if I have opinions different than other members of this
> community.  The one place I am not wrong though is my point in the last
> paragraph that it would be better to join forces with the Legacy holders
> than fight them and possibly lose - because if fighting them is chosen then
> someday very soon a court will make this decision for ARIN and this
> community - and very rarely does a court make everyone happy.   Now I will
> go back to my real job of helping customers utilizing the Internet that I
> helped build in a small way.  Hope I followed my own request for these
> submissions to be constructive.  :-)
> 
> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks℠