<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Tom –
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">While this may be surprising, it’s my personal view that ARIN and our community has benefited </div>
<div class="">significantly from the approach taken with the legacy resource holders – as opposed to what </div>
<div class="">might have occurred with some form of automatic or mandatory conversion of legacy resource </div>
<div class="">holders to ARIN members…</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In particular, legacy resource holders making their own voluntary decision on relative merits </div>
<div class="">of becoming an ARIN member (with consideration of the associated tradeoffs in services, </div>
<div class="">fees, legal agreements, etc.) has caused ARIN to weigh and address concerns with ARIN </div>
<div class="">agreements/fees/services and make improvements that might not have otherwise been </div>
<div class="">prioritized. By way of example, several revisions of the LRSA were made to provide for </div>
<div class="">more balanced terms and conditions as a result of feedback from uncontracted legacy</div>
<div class="">resource holders, and these same improvements were incorporated into the RSA for all </div>
<div class="">customers when the LRSA and RSA became a single uniform agreement in 2015.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As noted on this list, resource holders have some potential alternatives due to the adoption </div>
<div class="">of the Inter-RIR transfer policy, but in general ARIN still has significant “market power” due to </div>
<div class="">the structure of the RIR system and network effects from large scale adoption in the region. </div>
<div class="">I manage ARIN with a clear awareness of this situation, and under the circumstances, the </div>
<div class="">community of uncontracted legacy resource holders are a key source of unvarnished and </div>
<div class="">(mostly) objective insight into how ARIN could be doing a better job. To the extent that ARIN </div>
<div class="">can heed and incorporate such input, I believe we better serve the entire community of those </div>
<div class="">using number resources in the region. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks!</div>
<div class="">/John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">John Curran</div>
<div class="">President and CEO</div>
<div class="">American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 17 Sep 2022, at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher <<a href="mailto:beecher@beecher.cc" class="">beecher@beecher.cc</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">I would honestly love it if IANA was able to say "As of X date, all LEGACY IPv4 allocations are transferred to the RIRs . Assignees will not change, but will now need to comply with each RIRs policies."
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Of course this will never happen, because it would just be a flood of billable hours, lawsuits, and injunctions, where companies will claim 'intellectual property' over something they didn't develop.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">It's exhausting to watch this two tiered system where the legacy holders bleat about what the rules should be for the rest of us, while they can do whatever the heck they want, simply because they had the foresight to exist at the right time. </div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 10:41 AM John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 16 Sep 2022, at 10:11 PM, John Gilmore <<a href="mailto:gnu@toad.com" target="_blank" class="">gnu@toad.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">... the long-term direction is to provide the same services to all<br class="">
customers under the same agreement and fees – anything else wouldn’t<br class="">
be equitable.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
There are many "anything else"s that would indeed be equitable. It is<br class="">
equitable for businesses to sell yesterday's bread at a lower price than<br class="">
today's bread. Or to rent unused hotel rooms to late-night transients<br class="">
for lower prices than those charged to people who want pre-booked<br class="">
certainty about their overnight shelter. ARIN could equitably charge<br class="">
different prices to people in different situations; it already does.<br class="">
And ARIN could equitably offer services to non-members, by charging them<br class="">
transaction fees for services rendered, rather than trying to force them<br class="">
into a disadvantageous long term contract. Please don't confuse<br class="">
"seeking equity" with "forcing everyone into the same procrustean bed".<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
John - </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">ARIN can most certainly charge different fees for different customers – we’re actually doing </div>
<div class="">exactly that today for all of the legacy resource holders who have entered an agreement </div>
<div class="">with ARIN already or who choose to do so in the coming year. Rather than paying the </div>
<div class="">same registration service fees as everyone else, they have a cap on their total registry </div>
<div class="">maintenance fees (presently $150 per year, subject to an increase $25 per year) which</div>
<div class="">is a unique fee benefit that’s been provided only to the legacy resource holders. The </div>
<div class="">announcement just made is that we will cease offering this fee cap for legacy resource </div>
<div class="">holders who sign an agreement after 31 Dec 2023; i.e. they will pay the same fees as </div>
<div class="">everyone else based on total resources held. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As others have already noted, this will move ARIN towards charging more customers the </div>
<div class="">same fees for the same services. If you are a legacy resource holder that was planning </div>
<div class="">on entering into an LRSA with ARIN, it would be beneficial to do so before 2024. If you </div>
<div class="">are legacy resource holder that is not planning to enter an agreement with ARIN, then </div>
<div class="">the change doesn’t matter to you (other than perhaps a providing an opportunity to rail </div>
<div class="">on the mailing list in response anyway…) </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">As a simple example, ARIN's contract need not require its customers to<br class="">
give up their resources when ceasing to pay ARIN for services. (There's<br class="">
an existence proof: RIPE's doesn't.) Such a contract would likely<br class="">
result in more-equitable sharing of costs, since it would encourage<br class="">
legacy holders to pay ARIN (and legacy holders are still more than a<br class="">
quarter of the total IP addresses, possibly much more). The fact that<br class="">
ARIN hasn't made this happen says nothing about equity; it's about<br class="">
something else.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
A wonderful assertion, but false. Those issued resource before ARIN’s formation have </div>
<div class="">a choice – if they wish to enter an agreement and normalize their relationship they can </div>
<div class="">do so, but at that point they are subject to the same agreement as everyone else. ARIN</div>
<div class="">has made a conscious decision to treat everyone the same, both in terms of agreements</div>
<div class="">and fees (aside from the legacy resource holder fee cap that has been provided for last </div>
<div class="">two decades as an incentive and, as noted, is being sunset at the end of 2023.) </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Note that there are indeed circumstances where a party can exit the RSA and the number </div>
<div class="">resources return to the prior status – this is what occurs if ARIN is found in litigation to have </div>
<div class="">breached the agreement. </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">This whole tussle is about power. ARIN wants the power to take away<br class="">
legacy resources, while their current owners don't want that to happen.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
If that the goal were "take away legacy resources”, then there are far easier and more </div>
<div class="">direct means to accomplish that, but as noted previously, the goal is rather provide legacy</div>
<div class="">resource holders a choice if they want a formal relationship with ARIN or not. Enter into </div>
<div class="">an LRSA or don’t, that’s entirely up to each legacy resource holder.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">ARIN wants to be the puppeteer who pulls all the strings for the North<br class="">
American Internet. It pursues this desire by stealth and misdirection<br class="">
(e.g. "We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not<br class="">
yet signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to consider doing so<br class="">
before 31 December 2023 in order to secure the most favorable fees for<br class="">
their ARIN Services...") </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
ARIN certainly encourages legacy resource holders to enter an agreement - this helps </div>
<div class="">spread our costs among a larger customer base and provides the customer access to </div>
<div class="">our full suite of services – I’m not sure how that encouragement is seen as "stealth and </div>
<div class="">misdirection”, particularly as we go out of our way to communicate changes well in </div>
<div class="">advance and in forums such as this one. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">ARIN is also trying to encourage ISPs to<br class="">
demand RPKI before providing transit to IP address holders, which would<br class="">
turn its optional RPKI service (that it has tied by contract into ARIN<br class="">
gaining control over legacy resources) into an effectively mandatory<br class="">
RPKI service.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Again, ARIN encourages operators to deploy RPKI services to better protect their </div>
<div class="">network routing, but we are very clear to take no stance on _requiring_ deployment </div>
<div class="">of such services – this is matter best left for the operator community to decide. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">ARIN hides its power grab behind "our policies are set by our community"<br class="">
and "our board is elected by our community" misdirections. Its voting<br class="">
community consists almost entirely of those who aren't legacy holders<br class="">
(by definition: if you accept their contract, your legacy resource<br class="">
ownership goes away; if you don't, you can't vote). </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Almost accurate - the voting community is indeed those customers who have resources </div>
<div class="">under services agreement (i.e. members) and therefore that does not include legacy </div>
<div class="">resource holders unless they opt to enter an LRSA. That voting community does elect </div>
<div class="">the ARIN Board of Trustees and our ARIN Advisory Council. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">However, the ARIN policy development process is open to all, and there are many participants </div>
<div class="">who have legacy resources not under agreement and advocate on behalf of that community –</div>
<div class="">again, it’s your choice is you wish to participate or not, but it would be specious to assert that </div>
<div class="">the community that develops ARIN registry policy is limited to ARIN members.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">That community<br class="">
would love to confiscate some "underused" legacy IP addresses to be<br class="">
handed out for free to their own "waiting list". So this is equivalent<br class="">
to putting foxes in charge of policy for a henhouse.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Wow - I’m not certain you could be more incorrect. Note that the policies that were in</div>
<div class="">effect _prior to ARIN’s formation_ reflect exactly that sentiment above: i.e., per RFC 2050 – </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<pre style="font-size:13.3333px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;break-before:page" class=""> IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met.
The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it
is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer
exists. In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts
will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization
that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4
address space.</pre>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The community in this region (via ARIN’s policy development process) created registry policies </div>
<div class="">that specifically recognize that “underused" IP address space is not subject to reclamation but </div>
<div class="">can be transferred to another party that has need. (You can find these in ARIN’s number resource</div>
<div class="">policy manual (NRPM) in section 8) <<a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#8-transfers" target="_blank" class="">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#8-transfers</a>>. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">ARIN has also enshrined that same principle of ability to retain “underused number resources”</div>
<div class="">in its RSA/LRSA, in section 6 –</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><i class="">6. REVIEW OF HOLDER’S NUMBER RESOURCES</i></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><i class=""><br class="">
</i></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><i class="">Whenever a transfer or additional IP address space is requested by Holder, ARIN may review Holder’s utilization of previously allocated or assigned number resources and other Services received from ARIN to determine if Holder is complying
with the Service Terms. Except as set forth in this Agreement, (i) ARIN will take no action to reduce the Services currently provided for Included Number Resources due to lack of utilization by the Holder, and (ii) ARIN has no right to revoke any Included
Number Resources under this Agreement due to lack of utilization by Holder. However, ARIN may refuse to permit transfers or additional allocations of number resources to Holder if Holder’s Included Number Resources are not utilized in accordance with Policy.</i></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Now that markets exist for IP addresses, all that IP addresses need is a<br class="">
deed-registry to discourage fraud, like a county real-estate registrar's<br class="">
office. IP addresses no longer need a bureacracy for socialistic<br class="">
determinations about which supplicants "deserve" addresses. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That’s pretty much what ARIN’s policies have evolved into, although we do still at present </div>
<div class="">have a requirement that the recipient of an address block during a transfer have operational</div>
<div class="">need (i.e. they’re going to be used in an actual network at some point.) If you don’t like that</div>
<div class="">constraint, you can whine about it here on the nanog mailing list, or you can join others of </div>
<div class="">similar mind working in the ARIN policy development process – I actually don’t care either </div>
<div class="">way; ARIN operates the registry per the policy but leaves the development of registry policy</div>
<div class="">to the community. </div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Addresses now have prices, and if you want some, you buy them. Deed
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">registries get to charge fees for transactions, but they don't get to take away<br class="">
your property, nor tell you that you can't buy any more property because<br class="">
they disapprove of how you managed your previous properties. Actual<br class="">
ownership of real estate is defined by contracts and courts, not by the<br class="">
registry, which is just a set of pointers to help people figure out the<br class="">
history and current status of each parcel. The registry is important,<br class="">
but it's not definitive.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Agreed regarding contracts and courts - if you have an RSA with ARIN, you have contract </div>
<div class="">and your IP address block is a specific set of contractual rights that civil, criminal, probate,</div>
<div class="">bankruptcy and other courts all seem to have no problem understanding and dealing with </div>
<div class="">under rule of law. Absent such, I think you’ll find courts to be an interesting place indeed. </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Deed-registry is apparently not a model that ARIN wants to be operating<br class="">
in. They initially tried to refuse to record purchases of address<br class="">
blocks, because it violated their model of "if you don't use your IP<br class="">
addresses, you must give them back to us and receive no money for them".<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Factually incorrect. We never refused to transfer address blocks from one party to </div>
<div class="">another _if the transfer met the policies set by the community_. It was actually the </div>
<div class="">ARIN community that established the first number resource transfer policy in 2009</div>
<div class=""><<a href="https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2009/20090601_nrpm.html" target="_blank" class="">https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2009/20090601_nrpm.html</a>> and this </div>
<div class="">was done at the encouragement of the ARIN Board of Trustees…. (please let’s try </div>
<div class="">to stick with facts so an to keep the discussion here occurring on an informed basis.) </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">They saw their job as being the power broker who hands out free favors.<br class="">
But when their supply of free IP addresses dried up, they had no<br class="">
remaining function other than to record ownership (be a deed registry),<br class="">
and to run an occasional conference. It dawned on them that if they<br class="">
refused to record these transactions, they would not even be a reliable<br class="">
deed-registry; they would have entirely outlived their usefulness. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
As noted, the above is completely specious; the ARIN Board and the community developed </div>
<div class="">our registry policies for transfers to unrelated parties ahead of the first transactions.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Sothey reluctantly agreed to do that job, but their policies are still<br class="">
left over from their power-broker past. They'd love to go back to it,<br class="">
if only they could figure out how. IPv6? Sure! RPKI maybe? Worth a<br class="">
try!<br class="">
<br class="">
ARIN prefers to be a power broker rather than a scribe. Who can blame<br class="">
them for that? But don't mistake their strategy for stewardship.<br class="">
"Doing what the community wants" or "seeking the equitable thing" quacks<br class="">
like stewardship, so of course they brand themselves that way. But<br class="">
in my opinion their power-seeking is self-serving, not community-serving.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">John - if you don’t like ARIN policies, I’d suggest that you join the others in the policy </div>
<div class="">development process working to change them. ARIN makes sure that there’s open </div>
<div class="">and transparent policy development process, leaves the community to set those </div>
<div class="">policies, and then we operate the registry accordingly. That’s what we define as </div>
<div class="">stewardship" of the number registry. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks,</div>
<div class="">/John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">John Curran</div>
<div class="">President and CEO</div>
<div class="">American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>