Lightly used IP addresses
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Mon Aug 16 03:31:43 UTC 2010
All (and especially Mr. Curran),
Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to
change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to
registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget?
Best regards, Jeff
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
>> 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?
>> I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started to get in to trouble.
> 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.
>>> I believe the LRSA limits them primarily to the annual fee payment.
>> Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not
>> respect your belief.
>> 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)
>> 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).
>> 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).
> 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.
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ddosprotection to find out
about news, promotions, and (gasp!) system outages which are updated
in real time.
Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 -
21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
More information about the NANOG