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