[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 17 21:53:46 EST 2014
Let me know if we can work on this before the meeting.
Side note, I noticed that in January 2013 there was a PDP
simplification by the board. Another discussion happened in February
2013. There was an update by Bill Woodcock, the "PDP Simplification
Chair" and then nothing. Might be a good committee to breathe some
life back into.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Sweeting, John
<john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> Since I just received confirmation from the Primary I can now let you know
> it will be Kevin as primary and Bill D as secondary. They will be reaching
> out to you ASAP. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do at
> this time. Thanks again
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:52 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Who are the shepherds and should I expect to hear from them with plenty of
> time available prior to the next AC meeting to make potential initial
> On Monday, February 17, 2014, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>> Good input, thanks. Can you expand a bit on which aspects of the LRSA some
>> of your clients find burdensome, and which aspects of RIPE 605 they find
>> preferable? As we (and particularly the AC shepherds) work with the proposal
>> originator on getting a clear problem statement and then figuring out which
>> parts of prop-203 are in scope for the PDP (and which parts should be
>> submitted through the ACSP), it would be good to have your perspective on
>> what aspects of the RIPE policy would be most helpful for making sure that
>> transfers from non-RSA address holders get properly recorded.
>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:53 AM, "Lindsey, Marc" <mlindsey at lb3law.com> wrote:
>> I advise several large legacy block holders. Some of them signed the
>> LRSA, but many have not. For them, the burdens imposed by the LRSA outweigh
>> the benefits. Some on the PPML have suggested that off-contract legacy
>> holders don't sign up with ARIN because they want to be free-riders. But
>> the fees (and the avoidance of the fees) are not a factor in their LRSA
>> Based on my experience working with legacy block holders, I believe
>> adopting a policy substantially similar to RIPE 605 (ARIN prop 203) would go
>> a long way in harmonizing the interests of the ARIN community with the
>> community of legacy holders that do not have formal relationships with ARIN.
>> ARIN's absolute control over additional allocations of "free" IPv4 numbers
>> in its region has served as the primary policy enforcement mechanism. This
>> carrot really only works on recipients that need more IPv4 numbers, and then
>> only as long as ARIN has free numbers to give out. It doesn't directly
>> influence the behavior of many legacy block holders when they convey their
>> spare numbers. Legacy holders are a major source of future IPv4 number
>> distributions, and their relevance to the broader ARIN community will become
>> more prominent as ARIN's IPv4 free pool reaches depletion.
>> In the secondary market context, ARIN now relies on its ability to
>> withhold registry database updates as the primary means to extend
>> enforcement of its current policies into private transactions between
>> parties conveying beneficial use of IPv4 numbers. This, however, is a weak
>> enforcement tool. Two parties can convey beneficial use of IPv4 numbers in
>> lawful commercial transactions without updating ARIN's registry database.
>> But IPv4 number conveyances not recorded in the registry system produces
>> very undesirable results - the "reality" in the registry database will not
>> reflect operational reality, as David Conrad and others have pointed out in
>> several posts.
>> Buyers and sellers would prefer to document their conveyances in a
>> reliable and accurate public registry, but not if the contingencies and
>> conditions materially and adversely affect their commercial arrangement.
>> RIPE 605/ ARIN prop 203 recognizes this reality. With a little tweaking,
>> adopting it would go a long way in minimizing the disincentives now facing
>> legacy holders (and entities that want to acquire their numbers) when
>> contemplating whether updating the registry database is worth the risk of
>> subjecting their transactions to ARIN's approval process.
>> Marc Lindsey
>> Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
>> 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900
>> Washington, DC 20036
>> Office: (202) 857-2564
>> Mobile: (202) 491-3230
>> Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com
>> Website: www.lb3law.com
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
> the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
> the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
> contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the
> sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this
> E-mail and any printout.
More information about the ARIN-PPML