Lightly used IP addresses
jcurran at arin.net
Sun Aug 15 12:36:10 UTC 2010
On Aug 15, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
No, although it's been presented at multiple Public Policy and Member
meetings, and has enjoying extensive discussion on the mailing lists.
(It's been extensively revised based on the feedback received - see
(later followup from Randy - consolidated response)
> the fact is that the lrsa does require the legacy holder to sign away
> rights. and if you assert that they have no special/different rights,
> then why is that clause there?
Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that
all address holders are the same basic terms to the extent practical)
As noted earlier, the LRSA provides specific contractual rights including
precluding ARIN from reducing the services provided for legacy address
space, but a legacy holder trying to theorize property rights is working
under a set of assumptions likely incompatible with ARIN's mission and
articles of incorporation that call for actual management and stewardship
of Internet number resources. As noted, the other RIRs have similar
language, as do the IETF BCP RFCs in this space. The earlier you go back,
the clearer intent of the community on this point, as were Jon's actions
as the IANA. While this may not be convenient for folks today who wish
otherwise, it does not change reality. I've suggested the RIR processes
or the IETF as a way of bringing about the change you want based on
community consensus (this is the Internet style of addressing it); feel
free to add your choice of multinational organizations or governments if
you want to more choices with different decision processes.
President and CEO
>> p.s. If you want to continue to discuss, can we shortly move this to PPML
> no thanks.
p.p.s. My apologies to the list (for my having to respond to direct
queries and thus continue the thread here)
More information about the NANOG