[arin-ppml] nonsense about unrealized awareness from legacy resource holders

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

I agree with you regarding these persons.  These legacy holders, who would 
have to have enough knowledge to route communications using the assigned 
addresses, but not enough knowledge of what happened and who currently 
takes care of these legacy assignments after they received them on the 
back of an envelope or otherwise.

Like you, I do not believe they are as ignorant as many on this list might 
claim.  I also agree that it is time to end that fiction, and to put these 
holders on notice that these resources might be recovered.  However, I 
do measure the value of the recovery against the worth of the resources, 
and find that eventually that money would be better spent going to IPv6.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, Jo Rhett wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022, at 4:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
>       It’s much more basic than that - legacy resource holders received their blocks from parties who were issuing them pursuant to agreements with the
>       US Government to do so, and under circumstances where the corresponding responsibilities were not clearly spelt out.  While responsibility for
>       administration of the number resources has passed to ARIN, that doesn’t mean that any given legacy resource holder is aware of such a change, is aware
>       that this community would expect good contact information to be maintained, or is aware of any other obligations that may get put into registry policy.  
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. You weren't assigned this responsibility last week, last month, even last decade. The idea that a legacy resource holder could
> be ignorant of your assignment of responsibility almost 25 years after it happened is poppycock.
> 
> In absolutely no legal context is any entity, be it a person, a business, or even a conceptual entity allowed to disregard regulations because they occurred after
> they received a resource. Am I allowed to ignore traffic laws created after I purchased my car? Absolutely not. Is the DMV allowed to change its regulations after I
> purchased my car? Certainly. Would the state of California be allowed to replace the DMV with an entirely different entity with entirely different regulations at
> their own whim? Absolutely.
> 
> It's been 2 and a half decades, it's time to stop pandering this nonsense. I was totally in favor of making exceptions for legacy resources back when this started.
> Two decades later, when a majority of the people who received resources under said agreements (raises hand) are retired or dead, and we're still making exceptions for
> them? 
> 
> Please stop reinforcing this patent fantasy that "you can use this" on the back of the envelope was a commercial contract guaranteeing anything. When I got my first
> allocation from Jon it was on the back of the paper our request was provided on. There was no guarantee of anything, it was entirely plausible that the rules would
> change next week. The first time I got an allocation that had anything like an assurance on it, the assurance was that it was only valid for 24 months.  There was
> never, ever, any plausible expectation that this was a lifetime guarantee assignment, forever and ever, amen. Back in those days funding for the entire project was
> always in doubt, there was a real likelyhood it could be shut down any week or month. These were never commercial contracts (it was technically illegal to use for
> commercial purposes back in the "back of the envelope" days), and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is full of crap.
> 
> Nobody I worked with in the days before the 24 months clause is still alive. The people I trained when I left my role and moved to the west coast have retired after
> long careers. How about we retire this nonsense at some point before nobody who has ever known a legacy resource holder remains alive?
> 
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> 
>