[arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?

[John Curran]

On 5 Aug 2022, at 2:39 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com<mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>> wrote:

Although I am greatly appreciative of Ted's comments, which appear to be
supportive of the primary point that I most recently attempted to make here,
I am obliged to point out that the example of the 199.248.255.0/24 block,
and ARIN's seeming reluctance to reclaim it, *does not* actually support
the point that I have attempted to make here most recently. for one very
glaringly obvious reason:

RegDate:        1994-10-11

199.248.255.0/24 is unambiguously a legacy block.  Thus, ARIN may or may
not have in hand either a signed RSA or a signed LRSA that is relevant and
applicable to this block.  For the sake of argument, let's assume that it
doesn't.

Other people may reasonably disagree with me, but I personally am at least
somewhat sympathetic to the various legal assertions and bold claims that
have been made by various IPv4 legacy registrants, over time.  I am also
at least somewhat sympathetic to ARIN's understandable reluctance, if any,
to sally forth and do battle in the courts over such legacy-related claims.

Alas, there’s very little evidence that legacy resource holders (being parties that lack any
written agreement with ARIN) have any magical ability or right that would preclude ARIN
operating its registry exactly as directed by community policy (including entries held by
legacy resource holders), but I recognize there are some who may feel otherwise.

ARIN actually have zero reluctance when it comes to defending the community’s right to
establish apply policies applicable to the entire registry, and we do quite vigorously defend
the same in court without hesitation.

(Any reticence you see regarding the establishment of new policy requirements applicable to
legacy resource holders is simply driven out of the desire to be respectful to all parties with
resources in the registry and desire that any such policy changes be based out of a clearly
articulated policy need of this community.  We have done many such changes in the past that
are applicable to the entire registry including legacy resource holders – this includes addition
of the abuse contact, number resource resource review section, POC validation, etc.)

...

In fairness, I must apologize to John Curran, to the entire ARIN staff, and
to everyone here if my questions relating to this topic of dead companies may
at times have seemed somewhat accusatory in tone.  Upon reflection, I must
now say that any apparent inaction, on the part of ARIN staff, with respect
to such deceased entities, although somewhat frustrating to me personally,
is likely entirely understandable.  It would be entirely unfair to lay any
blame for what would appear to be a lack of action relating to such cases
at the feet of the ARIN staff.  I mean after all, they are but the servants
of the ARIN community and the ARIN membership, and they cannot fairly be
blamed if the community and the membership have given them absolutely zero
in the way of clear guidance on what, if anything, they should do about
dead resource-holding organizations.

Rather, if there is any blame to be laid for inaction when it comes to dead
resource-holding organizations, then I think that it can only fairly be
assigned to the ARIN community and the ARIN membership.  The community and
the membership should have addressed this issue long ago, and having failed
to do so, the community and the membership should do so now.  Better late
than never.

It is altogether clear to me what must, at the very least be done.  At the
very least, the community and/or the membership should give clear guidance,
immediately, to John Curran and the ARIN staff regarding what they should
do when they become aware, VIA ANY MEANS OR CHANNEL, of the dissolution of
any resource-holding entity that has ever signed an RSA agreement with ARIN.
...
So, it is clear, to me at least, what must, at a minimum, be done.  The
question remains of what process should be used to achieve it.  Should this
be a "consultation" or should it instead be a formal policy proposal?

I would suggest a formal policy proposal; you can find additional information on
submitting such here – https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220805/4c954bfb/attachment.htm>