[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResourceHolders

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 2/13/14, 16:24 , Morizot Timothy S wrote:
>
>> Steven L Ryerse wrote:
>>
>>> I think that the new RIPE policy is acknowledging this reality and I
>>> think ARIN adopting
>>> the same identical policy makes sense because it would allow the coming
>>> together of
>>> Legacy holders and ARIN allocations holders which I think is in
>>> everyone's interest.
>>>
>>> Note that I would expect ARIN to be able to request and receive proof of
>>> a
>>> completed transaction before they update their database with the new
>>> information.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. So you believe it's in the interest of those of us who have
>> signed RSAs and LRSAs to subsidize (through our annual fees) those who want
>> free registry services even though they refuse to adhere to the number
>> resource policy in our region. That policy, in part, requires that the
>> recipient of a legacy resource transfer, who  by definition cannot be a
>> legacy allocation recipient, sign an RSA and contribute toward the cost of
>> providing those registry services.
>>
>> That's an interesting perspective, but I'm not sure I agree. ARIN can't
>> really control use and advertisement of resources, but if someone who isn't
>> a pre-ARIN legacy recipient expects to receive registry services, I'm okay
>> with requiring them to sign an RSA and pay for those services.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
> This is actually becoming an interesting discussion, and I don't
> necessarily want to squelch it.  Also, I thank Marty for bringing this
> change of RIPE policy to our community's attention.
>

You're welcome.


>
> However, I want to remind everyone we have nine Draft Policies of our own
> on the ARIN policy docket, they were discussed at the NANOG-PPC this week.
>  But, the AC can always use more feedback.  So, please remember to take
> some time to review and comment on the Draft Policies on the ARIN policy
> docket, especially if we did not get your feedback during the NANOG-PPC
> this week.
>

Which to be honest, is embarrassing. Almost all of them were focused on
moving deck chairs with respect to IPv4 and competing for who could write a
better proposal. It was like watching dueling banjos for the most part.

But I did also suggest that we might want to adopt something like RIPE-605
since this thread is likely to conclude "game over" with respect to the
arguments around property and rights.


> There is only two short months before ARIN 33 in Chicago, and the AC needs
> to lock down text for any Recommended Draft Policies 30 days before the
> meeting.  So we need your feedback real soon now.
>


I plan to submit a modified version of 605 RSN.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140213/a320a6c0/attachment.htm>