[136515] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And so it ends...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Thu Feb 3 12:13:40 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <6E186F3F-6267-4D9B-916A-3663F13AA999@corp.arin.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:51:31 -0600
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. =
under contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is =
difficult or impossible to enforce.
>=20
> Transfers are permitted in the ARIN region per the community developed =
policies.
Understood. My point is: legacy holders, unless they've signed the LRSA =
or equivalent, aren't required to submit to the ARIN process.
>> We can talk about how people "should" return addresses, or "should" =
justify transfers, etc, but we would only be begging. Transfers will =
take place outside the RIR scope, because RIR transfer/market policy =
doesn't accommodate reality.
>=20
> Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can =
be reclaimed and reissued.
Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to "reclaim" legacy address =
blocks that RIR didn't "issue"? Without that legal authority, is any =
RIR prepared to accommodate the legal damages stemming from =
"reclamation"? (Does the RIR membership support such action, in the =
first place?)
>> Or, we can fix policy..?
>=20
> Absolutely... if the policy doesn't match your needs, please make a =
policy proposal.=20
That's a good suggestion, which I will follow-up on. I hope the RIR =
community can change despite its own momentum.
Cheers,
-Benson
