<div dir="ltr">Here are my most up to date observations, as I try to keep the issues simple and clear (in my own mind, anyway), then a conclusion:<br><br>1.
Many legacy holders (myself included) want to formalize a relationship
with ARIN, and even engage in financial participation;<br>
<br>2. Many legacy holders (myself included) are reluctant, to put it
mildly, to sacrifice ultimate control of their number resources -- and
even more so to pay for the dubious privilege;<br>
<br>3. The integrity of whois
data and financial support of ARIN seem to be the community's best fundamental motivations for legacy holder
agreements, even if some would advocate the more controversial purposes of
reallocation, reclamation, or revocation;<br>
<br>
4. All parties have good reasons to discourage the escalation of
disagreements to the level of governmental intervention, especially for
issues that we all should be able to resolve together;<br><br>5.
If any legacy holdings are to be seized, the prevailing sentiment seems
to prefer doing so with the unreachable and/or apathetic holders, and not with
the cooperative and participating ones;<br>
<br>6. Finally, by many if not all accounts, reallocating, reclaiming, and/or revoking legacy
holdings simply isn't likely to ameliorate ipv4 exhaustion (or ramifications thereof) to any truly significant or meaningful degree.<br>
<br>
Given all of these observations taken together, it seems clear to me
that involuntary reallocation, reclamation, and revocation of
legacy ipv4 number resources should be explicitly disavowed in the LRSA
for those that sign it. The value of bringing such holders into a
cooperative relationship for consideration and participation seems to far outweigh the
spoils of any actual or potential forcible control over the resources.<br><br>Thanks
again for considering my opinions for discussion. Corrections of my
misunderstandings, illumination of error in my biases, or contrary
observations, are welcome and encouraged as always.<br>
<br>Best regards,<br>Eric<br></div>