[arin-ppml] Revisit RPKI TAL Relying Party Agreement?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:06 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>    RIPE’s handling of legacy resource holders is different from ARIN’s,
>    in that ARIN requires that legacy resource holders wishing to receive
>    additional services sign the RSA and pay legacy maintenance fees.
>
>    Because the RSA delineates specific rights of the resource holder
>    (and includes a disclaimer of other rights that some might wish to
>    assert), ARIN’s requirement to enter into such an agreement to
>    provide RPKI services likely precludes some parties from RPKI
>    deployment: specifically those parties that value indeterminate
>    perceived rights as more important than participating in RPKI.
>
> I hope this helps clarify the issue somewhat (and Bill - if I’ve
> mischaracterized the situation, please feel free to elaborate)

Hi John,

Close enough for the sake of this discussion. The point is: as a
steward of RPKI, ARIN has to make choices which advance the use and
utility of RPKI. ARIN also makes choices which enhance ARIN's legal
standing as the North American monopoly address registry. These
choices are not 100% compatible and where there has been a conflict of
interest ARIN seems to me to have consistently prioritized its
non-RPKI address registry legal standing over advancing the utility of
RPKI. This is damaging to RPKI and to my way of thinking calls in to
question ARIN's suitability to be the steward.

Richard - I'm not conversant enough about RIPE practices and policies
to offer argument about what you said. I don't even know if RIPE
maintains registrations which are "legacy" in the ARIN sense of the
word -- such registrations predated the creation of current RIRs
including ARIN and RIPE.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>