[arin-ppml] ARIN actions regarding address blocks with no valid POCs (was: Re: Deceased Companies?)
mike at sum.net
Sat Aug 6 17:19:31 EDT 2022
Just a point of clarification.
ARIN is not the only RIR with legacy blocks.Check ARIN ERX Transfers.Every RIR has them, and has similar policies regarding them.There are some significant differences related to transfers of legacy space.
------- Original Message -------
>From : Ted Mittelstaedt[mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
Sent : 8/6/2022 4:10:28 PM
To : lee at dilkie.com; pmcnary at cameron.net
Cc : arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject : RE: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN actions regarding address blocks with no valid POCs (was: Re: Deceased Companies?)
Nobody not even me is suggesting that. What I am saying is that the
ARIN community has that power.
On 8/6/2022 11:25 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> The legacy blocks were created and in existence before ARIN took
> responsibility of them and while ARIN could simply take them all back,
> with no regard for history, it smacks of "colonialism" to me. You know,
> where the enlightened civilized folks take property from the savages
> because they can put it to better use. Those savages aren't even paying
> tax (arin fees) so really they should have no rights at all.
> See? That's how history repeats itself.
> On 2022-08-06 11:45, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> That is correct which is why John has repeatedly stated that action on
>> these needs to originate with the community. Essentially the RIR
>> system's legal support and basis for power is the same as the United
>> Nations various subcommittees such as WIPO - general consensus among
>> ARIN is the only RIR that has legacy blocks so this is a unique issue
>> with just the ARIN RIR. Most of the rest of ARIN such as NRPM is used
>> as a pattern by the other RIRs.
>> It is likely that what the community does with regards to the legacy
>> blocks will have an effect on the "deceased company" issue but the
>> simple reality with registered blocks, which John has tried to get
>> people to understand, is that as long as an entity is paying the
>> renewal fees, while it might be apparent that the block is "on
>> autopilot" and is not in use/being sat on/etc. and that is incredibly
>> irritating, the existence of ongoing payments and ongoing claims that
>> the block is "in use" by the payor and the existence of the original
>> contract between the entity and the RIR, all of that establishes a
>> legal right to continue to have the registration, by that entity.
>> If ARIN acts without consensus among the community, then it
>> jeopardizes the entire RIR system. We don't want the UN coming in and
>> taking it all over and the UN doesn't want to do that as long as the
>> RIR system appears to be functioning on consensus.
>> The gray line is what constitutes legitimate operations of the RIR and
>> where is the line between that and operations that cannot happen
>> without consensus to modify the NRPM. I have argued in the past that
>> ARIN has enough authority by the NRPM to houseclean - John's statement
>> a few days ago contradicts that - which means as John said if we want
>> ARIN to take a broom to the legacy blocks, we have to give them more
>> authority to do so by modifying the NRPM.
>> The actual truth is that if the community was united it could revoke
>> all legacy blocks tomorrow despite whatever legalities people out
>> there would argue. Ultimately it all comes down to what the major ISP
>> networks would accept, just because a RIR says a block is assigned to
>> someone else doesn't mean all the major ISPs are required to adhere to
>> that. In practice the major ISPs do because they prefer this over the
>> chaos that would result otherwise, but ultimately all a legacy block
>> is, is a checkoff in a database in ARIN. Nobody HAS to actually
>> follow it.
>> We could vote in power to ARIN to revoke and they could do it. It
>> would be a hellofa mess and absolutely the wrong thing to do - but the
>> community absolutely does have the power to do it.
>> Beyond that, absence of a proposal, it's all talk and no action. So I
>> guess if I want to see anything done I have to get cracking on a
>> On 8/4/2022 7:42 PM, Paul E McNary wrote:
>>> If I understood what John clarified for me earlier in this thread ...
>>> Many of the Legacy blocks will not be under NPRM and ARIN has to
>>> tread very carefully on trying to claw these addresses back.
>>> Many blocks that might be abandoned fall into legacy, especially
>>> /24's, assigned pre-ARIN.
>>> As always, many times I understand incorrectly.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
>>> To: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
>>> Cc: "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:30:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN actions regarding address blocks with
>>> no valid POCs (was: Re: Deceased Companies?)
>>>> Ted -
>>>> To my knowledge, the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM, i.e.
>>>> < " target="_new">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/> ) does not presently
>>>> provide for ARIN performing reclamation of address blocks assigned
>>>> to an
>>>> organization that has no valid POCs – it provides that such
>>>> organizations "will be unable to access further functionalities within
>>>> ARIN Online” and cannot be receiving organization for a reallocation or
>>>> detailed reassignment. (NRPM 3.6.5 and NRPM 3.7 respectively)
>>> Technically an org like LT is obtaining a detailed reassignment from
>>> whatever ISP they are using (most likely, it's a /29) Of course, they
>>> probably don't even realize or remember that they have a prior
>>> allocation which according to the NRPM needs valid POCs and also needs
>>> to meet utilization requirements before they were supposed to get
>>> their /29
>>> But, like I said, they aren't bad people, just likely ignorant of what
>>> they have. I suspect ARIN could take care of this by directly
>>> contacting them based on 3.6.5 and 3.7. I also suspect that is the case
>>> for a lot of the abandoned stuff. I do agree it would take a LOT of
>>> manpower and lacking clear direction from the community to do it is
>>> probably a big sticking point for ARIN which is why you are hinting a
>>> policy change is needed.
>>>> If you’d like ARIN to take particular action on address blocks with no
>>>> valid POCs, please propose policy specifying the actions for community
>>>> consideration and potential adoption.
>>> As you know, the main reason the POC validation was put into NRPM was to
>>> allow ARIN to require POC validity, so that it would discourage spammers
>>> and other criminals from trying to hide themselves behind fake names if
>>> they registered blocks, and it would make it possible to alert block
>>> holders who had bad citizens acting from IPs in their blocks.
>>> It was the "license plate" argument, that is, just like a car they are
>>> using a public resource, so the public has a right to know who they are,
>>> which is why we slap license plates on cars. Even though that really
>>> pisses off some people.
>>> But a secondary reason was to try to get a handle (no pun intended) on
>>> the extent of the "abandoned resources" problem. Along with validation
>>> came a requirement for ARIN to report. Well, it's certainly been long
>>> enough to get some valid data back - could you, John, say now, based on
>>> that data, what percentage of IPv4 number resources in ARIN are like
>>> this particular one - they have only invalid POCs and no valid ones?
>>> While those resources might not be available for use (as their orgs
>>> might be using them internally and just not kept up with the reporting
>>> requirements) if you could give us a percentage, if it's high enough
>>> it might stimulate the community to support additional requirements for
>>> having ARIN get a bit more activist on getting these resources back.
>>> I sort of liken this to the "abandoned car" issue in a major city. If
>>> the numbers of abandoned vehicles in a city are below .0001% then the
>>> population does nothing, but if it increases to .01% or .1% the
>>> population goes ballistic and starts demanding the city start towing,
>>> because the public wants it's street parking space back.
>>> So the question is, what are we leaving on the table? I think that was
>>> the thrust behind the very first query on this thread.
>>> Frankly I DO think we should seriously consider revoking registrations
>>> of number blocks that lack valid POCs. In this day and age, asking a
>>> number block holder to supply a valid POC is the absolute LEAST that the
>>> community can ask. It's not enough to have just a valid street address.
>>> It is after all, year 2022. Having an email address is NOT a barrier
>>> to anyone. If they are a small org they can just duplicate most of the
>>> info in the main number block into a POC and add a phone number and
>>> email address. It's not a hardship. If they are large then a street
>>> address of some main corporate HQ is useless if anyone needs to contact
>>> an individual about something going on from their IP addresses.
>>>> You can find more information on
>>>> submission of policy proposals here -
>>>> < " target="_new">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/>
>>>> John Curran
>>>> President and CEO
>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>> 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.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML