[arin-ppml] ARIN actions regarding address blocks with no valid POCs (was: Re: Deceased Companies?)

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Sat Aug 6 18:50:49 EDT 2022


ERX: Early Registration Transfers mostly happened a long time ago or
shortly after LACNIC and AFRINIC were created. See the following;

https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_X/PDF/erx.pdf


On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 17:24 Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> Once more, nobody cares about those because they are _in use_.
>
> Interesting that there's a handful of legacy space in other RIRs.  I
> hadn't thought about transfers.  However I don't believe transfers
> can happen unless they sign an LSRA so they are "in the system" at that
> point.
>
> Ted
>
> On 8/6/2022 2:19 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------- 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.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > 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.
> >  >
> >  > -lee
> >  >
> >  > 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
> >  >> members.
> >  >>
> >  >> 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
> >  >> proposal.
> >  >>
> >  >> Ted
> >  >>
> >  >> 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.
> >  >>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
> > <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/>
> >  >>>> < https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/>
> > <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.
> >  >>>
> >  >>> Ted
> >  >>>
> >  >>>>    You can find more information on
> >  >>>> submission of policy proposals here -
> >  >>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/
> > <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/>
> >  >>>> < https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/>
> > <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/>>
> >  >>>>
> >  >>>> Thanks!
> >  >>>> /John
> >  >>>>
> >  >>>> John Curran
> >  >>>> President and CEO
> >  >>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> >  >>>>
> >  >>> _______________________________________________
> >  >>> ARIN-PPML
> >  >>> 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:
> >  >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> >  >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >  >> _______________________________________________
> >  >> ARIN-PPML
> >  >> 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:
> >  >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> >  >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >  >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML
> > 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:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220806/1c18ea8c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list