Lightly used IP addresses
bill at herrin.us
Mon Aug 16 05:44:47 UTC 2010
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, 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.
>> I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started to get in to trouble.
> To the best of my knowledge,
> ICANN membership is not open.
Not any more.
>>>> 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.
Put your money where your mouth is Owen. As an ARIN Advisory Council
member, ask ARIN Counsel Steve Ryan to issue a legal opinion that ARIN
considers itself constrained to limit the requirements placed on LRSA
signatories "primarily to the annual fee payment" regardless of how
ARIN policy changes.
Until reading such a clarification from someone actually qualified to
make it, I have to expect that the contract means what it says when it
says that only regular fees and use ratios are excluded from the scope
of policy ARIN may apply to legacy registrants under an LRSA.
>> 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:
>More rational construction would lead one to believe
>that the stated intent is to limit ARIN's ability
The courts are full of people who thought a contract intended to mean
something other than the actual text to which their signature was
attached. Their rate of success is not great.
> 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.
ARIN doesn't seem to have any problem differentiating between ISP
address holdings and end-user address holdings in the policies, and
applying rather substantially different requirements to each. What
exactly do you think would prevent policies from differentiating
between those two classes and legacy address holdings under an LRSA?
The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's
not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it
doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to
behave that way.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the NANOG