[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 17 22:07:43 EST 2014
Whoops, dropped a word. There was a PDP Simplification Committee
established by the board. Sorely needed.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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