[128763] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Aug 15 23:11:16 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimR3n8Foog4uaQBwRXhXGQJTCrfKPMvTS5z_q4q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:05:22 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
>=20
> Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses
> (and how it collects that money and the privileges conferred on the
> folks from whom it's collected) are not a matter of public concern?
>=20
> I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started to get in =
to trouble.
>=20
>=20
As I said, they are a matter of member concern. To the best of my =
knowledge,
ICANN membership is not open. If you care about how ARIN spends its =
money,
become a member, speak up, and vote. Membership is open to all and =
voting
membership is open to all resource holders.
>>> Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally
>>> consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses
>>> instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that
>>> balancing check to the contract, I think a steady creep in what ARIN
>>> requires of the signatory is inevitable... and the affirmative =
actions
>>> ARIN can require the registrant to perform in order to maintain the
>>> contract are nearly unlimited.
>>>=20
>> I believe the LRSA limits them primarily to the annual fee payment.
>=20
> Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not
> respect your belief.
>=20
> ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new
> ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action to reduce
> the services provided for Included Number Resources _that are not
> currently being utilized_ by the Legacy Applicant." (10.b) and "fee
> shall be $100 per year until the year 2013; no increase per year
> greater than $25." (6.b)
>=20
> Except for those exclusions, the LRSA includes "the Policies which are
> hereby incorporated by reference" (15.d). Those policies are "binding
> upon Legacy Applicant immediately after they are posted on the
> Website" (7).
>=20
> In other words, if the ARIN board adopts a policy that legacy
> registrants must install some of their addresses on a router on the
> moon (or perhaps some requirement that's a little less extreme) then
> failing to is cause for terminating the contract (14.b). Which revokes
> the IP addresses (14.e.i).
>=20
I think that is a rather bizarre and extreme construction of excerpts of =
the
contract language. More rational construction would lead one to believe
that the stated intent is to limit ARIN's ability to raise fees and =
prevent
the revocation of legacy addresses absent a failure to pay fees.
The policies incorporated by reference are the same policies which =
affect
every other address holder, so ARIN would have a hard time requiring
legacy holders to address devices on the moon without requiring the
same thing from all other resource holders.
Owen
