[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

[Morizot Timothy S]

Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> <soapbox>
> 
> Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost
> regarding business records, and it is incumbent
> on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
> for changes.  Updating ARIN records (and the cost
> of doing so) is no different, and should not have a
> special "out" just because it can be take time or
> the people involved did/do not want to invest that
> effort.  The days of informal handshake number
> deals are (or should be) long over.  Get over it, and
> do the (boring, painful, but necessary) work.
> 
> </soapbox>

Thanks for that Gary. It clarified for me one of the things that's been bugging me in this discussion. I'm pretty much a pure IT guy and hate the process and paperwork BS. I tend to avoid it or let others do that aspect as much as possible without also allowing my projects to suffer. But as you say, some of that boring, painful work is simply necessary. Frankly, quite often making the effort to read and keep up with this list fits in that category.

Perhaps I've also absorbed some of the culture of the organization that's employed me for the last several decades. ;-)

I also had to get our registry records up to date once I discovered they weren't. Fortunately, we're still the same organization. And one of the POCs from the 90s was still working for us so we were able to update them ourselves. And when I saw and read the LRSA, I walked through the lengthy process of getting it approved and signed by our organization. It was mostly a no-brainer since it established formal and explicit rights and defined our relationship with the registry where previously that had been one-sided, implicit, and undefined.

I also sense something of a logical inconsistency. On the one hand, the registry is so valuable that the sky is falling because some are choosing not to keep their records up to date. On the other hand, the registry has so little value that resource holders won't expend the effort necessary to maintain their records if they have to suffer any inconvenience to do so. If the registry has value, then those who choose not to maintain their registration have diminished the value of the resources they hold. So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I can't say I find the argument compelling. Given that ARIN will always have to perform due diligence to keep someone from hijacking a registration, there's a limit to how convenient they can make the process. As a result, there will always be those who choose to walk away, for whatever reason, instead.

It seems to me that the real benefit for removing needs-based allocations for 8.2 and legacy transfers (ARIN 2014-11) is more the ability to acquire IPv4 resources without demonstrating a needs basis in a post-IPv4 exhaustion world. It's not at all clear to me that either proposal will have significant impact on registry accuracy, but 2014-11, at least, would certainly free affected transfers from any needs basis requirements.

I don't really have a dog in that fight. My organization has the IPv4 resources it needs for the transition and it's not like our size dramatically changes over time. We're  a pretty stable enterprise organization. However, if we're going to do that, I do think we should simply drop the needs basis policy requirements altogether.

I would support a proposal to remove the words aggregate and reclaim from 8.2 since they may  both be out dated at this point. But I definitely don't support this proposal or 2014-11.

Thanks,

Scott