<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:26 AM, <<A href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</A>> wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>1.<SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>Legacy holders are not here illegaly.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Legacy holders are violating the rules that the industry has</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">collectively agreed upon. The legacy holders are not playing fair. There</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">are obviously shades of grey here but the legacy holders are closer to</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">being here illegally than those who sign the RSA and pay their</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">membership fees.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>No. They are not. The industry has, generally collectively agreed that</DIV><DIV>legacy holders are grandfathered under a different set of rules. The fact</DIV><DIV>that you don't like this collective decision is another matter.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>2.<SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>Legacy holders can't be deported.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">They could be deported, i.e. the legacy resources could be taken away</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">from them by suing them in court. I wouldn't recommend doing that at</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">this time, but it may be that the industry collectively will decide to</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">begin doing that as IPv4 resources become scarcer.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Well... According to ARIN's lawyer, we probably wouldn't win on that</DIV><DIV>one, so, I'm not inclined to believe your statement over that of Steve</DIV><DIV>Ryan.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>3.<SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>Legacy holders can remain and continue not<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">paying "taxes"</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>without any risk because they haven't violated<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">any law/rules.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">This is not true. They are in violation of ARIN rules and they run</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">several risks. First, they may be seen to be acting unfairly and thus</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">lose business. Secondly they may have their addresses reclaimed either</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">through operational actions (filtering announcements) or through court</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">action. I believe that these risks will increase as IPv4 addresses get</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">close to exhaustion.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>They aren't subject to ARIN rules. They have no contractual relationship</DIV><DIV>with ARIN and there is no legal basis for claiming that they should be</DIV><DIV>subject to ARIN rules. ARIN has no force of law other than the contractual</DIV><DIV>relationships they have with the recipients of ARIN resources.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>So far, nobody seems to be boycotting Harvard or MIT because of their</DIV><DIV>legacy address space. I don't think such a thing is likely in the future.</DIV><DIV>I don't know of any organization who is losing business because of their</DIV><DIV>possession of legacy addresses. Do you?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Secondly, I think operationally, such actions against the larger holders</DIV><DIV>of legacy addresses (i.e. the ones that matter in terms of this policy)</DIV><DIV>would be unlikely because, generally, ISPs don't want to piss-off</DIV><DIV>large clients. Court action has been deemed unlikely to succeed by</DIV><DIV>someone I am convinced knows way more about it than you do, so,</DIV><DIV>I think you're wrong on that as well.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>As to the risks increasing, well, perhaps, but, I don't think they will</DIV><DIV>ever increase to meaningful proportions.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>4.<SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>Legacy holders are already exempt from ARIN contracts</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>because they never signed one and ARIN is not a<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">governmental</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>organization, so, is unable to make "laws"<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">which require actions</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>or payments from entities with no contractual<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">relationship.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The law is not that simple. There are such things as common law and case</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">law. At least one court has already ruled that an organization must sign</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">ARIN's RSA and follow ARIN's rules and policies in order to transfer an</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">address allocation from another organization. Unless there are U.S. laws</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">that specifically address IP address allocations, it is not clear which</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">other laws, existing or new ones, might apply to IP address allocations</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">and the ARIN relationships. That kind of thing gets settled in court</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">cases which is why it is called case law.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>While you sort of have that right, you've missed some key points of the</DIV><DIV>situation...</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The ruling was that ARIN was not required to take action outside of ARINs</DIV><DIV>documented processes and procedures. That ARIN could not be required</DIV><DIV>to transfer the block unless the recipient organization complied with ARINS</DIV><DIV>policies and procedures.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>That is a far cry from implementing ARIN policies on an existing holder</DIV><DIV>of resources. I believe the legal term for such an action would be a </DIV><DIV>"law of ex post facto". Correct me if I am wrong, but, I believe there is</DIV><DIV>a constitutional prohibition of such things...</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Yep... Article 1 section 9...</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="5"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><B>Section 9.</B></SPAN></FONT></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Times; min-height: 23.0px">...</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="5"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.</SPAN></FONT></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="5"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">...</SPAN></FONT></P><DIV><BR>(from <A href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/</A>)</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I believe that if ARIN did implement any policy granting special waivers</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">and benefits to organizations in violation of ARIN's rules and policies,</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">that would weaken ARIN's case-law position. That is why I will not</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">support any such policy.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps. I'm discussing that matter with Steve Ryan off-list. We're</DIV><DIV>working on finding a way to address the issues in question without</DIV><DIV>such consequences.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">In fact, given the unlikeliness of an organization going through the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">pain of renumbering to be a good network citizen, I suspect that this</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">policy was introduced as an attempt to weaken ARIN's case-law position.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>You can suspect all you want, but, I can tell you that I am pretty sure</DIV><DIV>I know better than you the intent of the introduction of this policy.</DIV><DIV>The intent is to remove some of the barriers to address space reclamation</DIV><DIV>and to encourage legacy holders to begin using IPv6 and join</DIV><DIV>the ARIN community and process.</DIV><BR><DIV>Frankly, I find your accusation baseless and offensive.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Owen</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>