<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffcc">
I know you didn't Ted. I was just pointing out the parallels in
history and how people with power and really good intentions can end
up misusing it to the detriment of those that came first.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-lee</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-08-06 16:10, Ted Mittelstaedt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0d9ea1a5-fa43-2576-282c-2a0ca4d1a405@ipinc.net">Nobody
not even me is suggesting that. What I am saying is that the ARIN
community has that power.
<br>
<br>
Ted
<br>
<br>
On 8/6/2022 11:25 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
See? That's how history repeats itself.
<br>
<br>
-lee
<br>
<br>
On 2022-08-06 11:45, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Ted
<br>
<br>
On 8/4/2022 7:42 PM, Paul E McNary wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 tread very carefully on trying to claw these
addresses back.
<br>
Many blocks that might be abandoned fall into legacy,
especially /24's, assigned pre-ARIN.
<br>
As always, many times I understand incorrectly.
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----
<br>
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net"><tedm@ipinc.net></a>
<br>
To: "John Curran" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net"><jcurran@arin.net></a>
<br>
Cc: "arin-ppml" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"><arin-ppml@arin.net></a>
<br>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:30:36 PM
<br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN actions regarding address
blocks with no valid POCs (was: Re: Deceased Companies?)
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Ted -
<br>
<br>
To my knowledge, the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM,
i.e.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/"><https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/></a> )
does not presently
<br>
provide for ARIN performing reclamation of address blocks
assigned 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>
</blockquote>
<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 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>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
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>
<blockquote type="cite"> You can find more information on
<br>
submission of policy proposals here -
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/"><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>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ARIN-PPML
<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
<br>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ARIN-PPML
<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
<br>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>