Mailing List Archive

> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to

consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA

randy

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022, Randy Bush wrote:
>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
>
> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
> randy
I concur , And seconded .

Hth , JimL
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network & System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux |
| jiml@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

John Curran wrote:
> > We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
> > signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA

Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally been
that ARIN would prefer to charge you annually for them, and then
"recover" them (take them away from you) if you ever stop paying, or if
they ever decide that you are not using them wisely. If you once agree
to an ARIN contract, your resources lose their "legacy" status and you
become just another sharecropper subject to ARIN's future benevolence or
lack thereof.

The change recently announced by John Curran will make the situation
very slightly worse, by making ARIN's annual fees for legacy resources
changeable at their option, instead of being capped by contract. ARIN
management could have changed their offer to be better, if they wanted
to attract legacy users, but they made an explicit choice to do the
opposite.

By contrast, RIPE has developed a much more welcoming stance on legacy
resources, including:

* retaining the legacy status of resources after a transfer or sale
* allowing resources to be registered without paying annual fees to RIPE
(merely paying a one-time transaction fee), so that later non-payment
of annual fees can't be used as an excuse to steal the resources.
* agreeing that RIPE members will keep all their legacy resources even if
they later cease to be RIPE members

You are within the RIPE service area if your network touches Europe,
northern Asia, or Greenland. This can be as simple as having a rented
or donated server located in Europe, or as complicated as running a
worldwide service provider. If you have a presence there, you can
transfer your worldwide resources out from under ARIN policies and put
them under RIPE's jurisdiction instead.

Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented bureaucracy,
and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above treatment may
require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it, rather than accepting
the defaults. But their motives are more benevolent than ARIN's toward
legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly seems to want to gather in legacy
resource holders, either as RIPE members or not, without reducing any of
the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.

Other RIRs may have other good or bad policies about legacy resource
holders. As Randy proposed, consult a lawyer competent in legacy domain
registration issues before making any changes.

John

John -

Your summary is not inaccurate; I will note that ARIN’s approach is the result of aiming for
a different target – that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an
equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.

For more than two decades legacy resource holders have been provided the opportunity to
normalize their relations with ARIN by entry into an LRSA - thus receiving the same services
on the same terms and conditions as all others in the region (and also with a favorable fee cap
applied to their total annual registry fees.) While many folks have taken advantage of that
offer over the years, it’s quite possible that all of those interested have already considered
the matter and hence going forward we are returning to the refrain of the entire community
in seeking the lowest fees applied equitably to all in the region.

As we’ve recently added more advanced services that may be of interest to many in the
community (RPKI and authenticated IRR) and also have just made a favorable simplification
to the RSA in section 7 (an area that has been problematic for some organizations in the past),
it is important that ARIN not subset availability of the legacy fee cap without significant notice,
as there many be a few folks out there who were unaware of LRSA with fee cap availability
and/or haven’t recently taken a look at the various tradeoffs.

In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these advanced services (whose
development and maintenance is paid for by the ARIN community) can simply continue to
maintain their legacy resources in the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as
ARIN is continuing to provide basic registration services to the thousands of non-contracted
legacy resource holders (including online updates to your resources, reverse DNS services,
etc.) without fee or contract.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On 15 Sep 2022, at 3:41 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
>
> John Curran wrote:
>>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
>>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
>
> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
>
> Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally been
> that ARIN would prefer to charge you annually for them, and then
> "recover" them (take them away from you) if you ever stop paying, or if
> they ever decide that you are not using them wisely. If you once agree
> to an ARIN contract, your resources lose their "legacy" status and you
> become just another sharecropper subject to ARIN's future benevolence or
> lack thereof.
>
> The change recently announced by John Curran will make the situation
> very slightly worse, by making ARIN's annual fees for legacy resources
> changeable at their option, instead of being capped by contract. ARIN
> management could have changed their offer to be better, if they wanted
> to attract legacy users, but they made an explicit choice to do the
> opposite.
>
> By contrast, RIPE has developed a much more welcoming stance on legacy
> resources, including:
>
> * retaining the legacy status of resources after a transfer or sale
> * allowing resources to be registered without paying annual fees to RIPE
> (merely paying a one-time transaction fee), so that later non-payment
> of annual fees can't be used as an excuse to steal the resources.
> * agreeing that RIPE members will keep all their legacy resources even if
> they later cease to be RIPE members
>
> You are within the RIPE service area if your network touches Europe,
> northern Asia, or Greenland. This can be as simple as having a rented
> or donated server located in Europe, or as complicated as running a
> worldwide service provider. If you have a presence there, you can
> transfer your worldwide resources out from under ARIN policies and put
> them under RIPE's jurisdiction instead.
>
> Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented bureaucracy,
> and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above treatment may
> require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it, rather than accepting
> the defaults. But their motives are more benevolent than ARIN's toward
> legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly seems to want to gather in legacy
> resource holders, either as RIPE members or not, without reducing any of
> the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.
>
> Other RIRs may have other good or bad policies about legacy resource
> holders. As Randy proposed, consult a lawyer competent in legacy domain
> registration issues before making any changes.
>
> John

NANOGers -

My bad – one typo in the message that follows; it should read “… it is important that ARIN not _sunset_ availability of the legacy fee cap …” (NOT subset, subnet, subject, etc.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


> On 15 Sep 2022, at 4:34 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>
> John -
>
> Your summary is not inaccurate; I will note that ARIN’s approach is the result of aiming for
> a different target – that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an
> equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.
>
> For more than two decades legacy resource holders have been provided the opportunity to
> normalize their relations with ARIN by entry into an LRSA - thus receiving the same services
> on the same terms and conditions as all others in the region (and also with a favorable fee cap
> applied to their total annual registry fees.) While many folks have taken advantage of that
> offer over the years, it’s quite possible that all of those interested have already considered
> the matter and hence going forward we are returning to the refrain of the entire community
> in seeking the lowest fees applied equitably to all in the region.
>
> As we’ve recently added more advanced services that may be of interest to many in the
> community (RPKI and authenticated IRR) and also have just made a favorable simplification
> to the RSA in section 7 (an area that has been problematic for some organizations in the past),
> it is important that ARIN not subset availability of the legacy fee cap without significant notice,
> as there many be a few folks out there who were unaware of LRSA with fee cap availability
> and/or haven’t recently taken a look at the various tradeoffs.
>
> In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these advanced services (whose
> development and maintenance is paid for by the ARIN community) can simply continue to
> maintain their legacy resources in the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as
> ARIN is continuing to provide basic registration services to the thousands of non-contracted
> legacy resource holders (including online updates to your resources, reverse DNS services,
> etc.) without fee or contract.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>> On 15 Sep 2022, at 3:41 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
>>
>> John Curran wrote:
>>>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
>>>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
>>
>> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
>>
>> Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally been
>> that ARIN would prefer to charge you annually for them, and then
>> "recover" them (take them away from you) if you ever stop paying, or if
>> they ever decide that you are not using them wisely. If you once agree
>> to an ARIN contract, your resources lose their "legacy" status and you
>> become just another sharecropper subject to ARIN's future benevolence or
>> lack thereof.
>>
>> The change recently announced by John Curran will make the situation
>> very slightly worse, by making ARIN's annual fees for legacy resources
>> changeable at their option, instead of being capped by contract. ARIN
>> management could have changed their offer to be better, if they wanted
>> to attract legacy users, but they made an explicit choice to do the
>> opposite.
>>
>> By contrast, RIPE has developed a much more welcoming stance on legacy
>> resources, including:
>>
>> * retaining the legacy status of resources after a transfer or sale
>> * allowing resources to be registered without paying annual fees to RIPE
>> (merely paying a one-time transaction fee), so that later non-payment
>> of annual fees can't be used as an excuse to steal the resources.
>> * agreeing that RIPE members will keep all their legacy resources even if
>> they later cease to be RIPE members
>>
>> You are within the RIPE service area if your network touches Europe,
>> northern Asia, or Greenland. This can be as simple as having a rented
>> or donated server located in Europe, or as complicated as running a
>> worldwide service provider. If you have a presence there, you can
>> transfer your worldwide resources out from under ARIN policies and put
>> them under RIPE's jurisdiction instead.
>>
>> Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented bureaucracy,
>> and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above treatment may
>> require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it, rather than accepting
>> the defaults. But their motives are more benevolent than ARIN's toward
>> legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly seems to want to gather in legacy
>> resource holders, either as RIPE members or not, without reducing any of
>> the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.
>>
>> Other RIRs may have other good or bad policies about legacy resource
>> holders. As Randy proposed, consult a lawyer competent in legacy domain
>> registration issues before making any changes.
>>
>> John
>

Yo John!

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 20:34:43 +0000
John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:

> In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these
> advanced services (whose development and maintenance is paid for by
> the ARIN community) can simply continue to maintain their legacy
> resources in the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as
> ARIN is continuing to provide basic registration services to the
> thousands of non-contracted legacy resource holders (including online
> updates to your resources, reverse DNS services, etc.) without fee or
> contract.

Not been my experience.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588

Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin

On 15 Sep 2022, at 4:45 PM, Gary E. Miller <gem@rellim.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 20:34:43 +0000
> John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>
>> In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these
>> advanced services (whose development and maintenance is paid for by
>> the ARIN community) can simply continue to maintain their legacy
>> resources in the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as
>> ARIN is continuing to provide basic registration services to the
>> thousands of non-contracted legacy resource holders (including online
>> updates to your resources, reverse DNS services, etc.) without fee or
>> contract.
>
> Not been my experience.

Gary -

We do have some cases where folks have difficulty demonstrating that the resources were issued to
them (and/or have disputes between parties over who is the actual rights holder), but otherwise you
should be able to create an ARIN Online account and administer ARIN services for the address block
without any agreement - see https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/legacy/services/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/legacy/services/> for details. The
intent is that legacy resource holders receive the same registry services (w/o fee or contract) as they
did before ARIN’s inception.

If you’ve got a situation where you believe that has not been the case, reach out to our Registration
Services Helpdesk <https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/helpdesk/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/helpdesk/>>, and if that fails, reach out to
me and provide a reference to the appropriate ARIN ticket(s) so that I can review.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Speaking from the enterprise / end site perspective I would bet there are a lot of legacy holders that other than maybe updating their reverse DNS records once or twice haven’t looked at ARIN policies or their allocation since the late 1980s. In most cases there really is not strong technical reason to, the stuff just keeps working.

We are put in kind of an awkward place by the current policies. On one hand some of us would like to be good Internet citizens and implement things like IRR and RPKI for our resources to help the larger community. But show the RSA/LRSA to your lawyers with the justification that "I would like to implement RPKI, but everything will keep working even if we don't." You can bet they will never jump on board. On one hand there is a push from ARIN and the larger community to use these advanced services, but on the other hand the fees and risk far outweigh the benefits. (Heck the fees aren’t even that big of a deal, just the risk of loosing control of our legacy allocations.)

Tom Krenn
Network Architect
Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology




-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tom.krenn=hennepin.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 3:35 PM
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: [External] Re: Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)

CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.

John -

Your summary is not inaccurate; I will note that ARIN’s approach is the result of aiming for a different target – that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.

For more than two decades legacy resource holders have been provided the opportunity to normalize their relations with ARIN by entry into an LRSA - thus receiving the same services on the same terms and conditions as all others in the region (and also with a favorable fee cap applied to their total annual registry fees.) While many folks have taken advantage of that offer over the years, it’s quite possible that all of those interested have already considered the matter and hence going forward we are returning to the refrain of the entire community in seeking the lowest fees applied equitably to all in the region.

As we’ve recently added more advanced services that may be of interest to many in the community (RPKI and authenticated IRR) and also have just made a favorable simplification to the RSA in section 7 (an area that has been problematic for some organizations in the past), it is important that ARIN not subset availability of the legacy fee cap without significant notice, as there many be a few folks out there who were unaware of LRSA with fee cap availability and/or haven’t recently taken a look at the various tradeoffs.

In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these advanced services (whose development and maintenance is paid for by the ARIN community) can simply continue to maintain their legacy resources in the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as ARIN is continuing to provide basic registration services to the thousands of non-contracted legacy resource holders (including online updates to your resources, reverse DNS services,
etc.) without fee or contract.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On 15 Sep 2022, at 3:41 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
>
> John Curran wrote:
>>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
>>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
>
> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
>
> Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally
> been that ARIN would prefer to charge you annually for them, and then
> "recover" them (take them away from you) if you ever stop paying, or
> if they ever decide that you are not using them wisely. If you once
> agree to an ARIN contract, your resources lose their "legacy" status
> and you become just another sharecropper subject to ARIN's future
> benevolence or lack thereof.
>
> The change recently announced by John Curran will make the situation
> very slightly worse, by making ARIN's annual fees for legacy resources
> changeable at their option, instead of being capped by contract. ARIN
> management could have changed their offer to be better, if they wanted
> to attract legacy users, but they made an explicit choice to do the
> opposite.
>
> By contrast, RIPE has developed a much more welcoming stance on legacy
> resources, including:
>
> * retaining the legacy status of resources after a transfer or sale
> * allowing resources to be registered without paying annual fees to RIPE
> (merely paying a one-time transaction fee), so that later non-payment
> of annual fees can't be used as an excuse to steal the resources.
> * agreeing that RIPE members will keep all their legacy resources even if
> they later cease to be RIPE members
>
> You are within the RIPE service area if your network touches Europe,
> northern Asia, or Greenland. This can be as simple as having a rented
> or donated server located in Europe, or as complicated as running a
> worldwide service provider. If you have a presence there, you can
> transfer your worldwide resources out from under ARIN policies and put
> them under RIPE's jurisdiction instead.
>
> Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented
> bureaucracy, and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above
> treatment may require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it,
> rather than accepting the defaults. But their motives are more
> benevolent than ARIN's toward legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly
> seems to want to gather in legacy resource holders, either as RIPE
> members or not, without reducing any of the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.
>
> Other RIRs may have other good or bad policies about legacy resource
> holders. As Randy proposed, consult a lawyer competent in legacy
> domain registration issues before making any changes.
>
> John



Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders. As you
mentioned, that would probably have a price tag attached to it to
cover the costs for such operations, but a contract could stay away
from ownership issues and not either say the blocks are yours or that
the blocks could be taken from you. Pay for the services, get RPKI;
don't pay them, RPKI ROAs expire.

I have a feeling that the recurring cost would be higher than using
the scale that the RIR system has in providing those services, and
that doing RIR-shopping (like what was already suggested here, moving
the resources to RIPE) is simpler and more cost effective. But this
would at least expose the real costs without making the RIR-allocated
resource holders subsidize legacy resource holders, which is the good
thing I see in the direction ARIN is going.

Rubens

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 5:18 AM Tom Krenn via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> Speaking from the enterprise / end site perspective I would bet there are a lot of legacy holders that other than maybe updating their reverse DNS records once or twice haven’t looked at ARIN policies or their allocation since the late 1980s. In most cases there really is not strong technical reason to, the stuff just keeps working.
>
> We are put in kind of an awkward place by the current policies. On one hand some of us would like to be good Internet citizens and implement things like IRR and RPKI for our resources to help the larger community. But show the RSA/LRSA to your lawyers with the justification that "I would like to implement RPKI, but everything will keep working even if we don't." You can bet they will never jump on board. On one hand there is a push from ARIN and the larger community to use these advanced services, but on the other hand the fees and risk far outweigh the benefits. (Heck the fees aren’t even that big of a deal, just the risk of loosing control of our legacy allocations.)
>
> Tom Krenn
> Network Architect
> Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tom.krenn=hennepin.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 3:35 PM
> To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: [External] Re: Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)
>
> CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.
>
> John -
>
> Your summary is not inaccurate; I will note that ARIN’s approach is the result of aiming for a different target – that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.
>
> For more than two decades legacy resource holders have been provided the opportunity to normalize their relations with ARIN by entry into an LRSA - thus receiving the same services on the same terms and conditions as all others in the region (and also with a favorable fee cap applied to their total annual registry fees.) While many folks have taken advantage of that offer over the years, it’s quite possible that all of those interested have already considered the matter and hence going forward we are returning to the refrain of the entire community in seeking the lowest fees applied equitably to all in the region.
>
> As we’ve recently added more advanced services that may be of interest to many in the community (RPKI and authenticated IRR) and also have just made a favorable simplification to the RSA in section 7 (an area that has been problematic for some organizations in the past), it is important that ARIN not subset availability of the legacy fee cap without significant notice, as there many be a few folks out there who were unaware of LRSA with fee cap availability and/or haven’t recently taken a look at the various tradeoffs.
>
> In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these advanced services (whose development and maintenance is paid for by the ARIN community) can simply continue to maintain their legacy resources in the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as ARIN is continuing to provide basic registration services to the thousands of non-contracted legacy resource holders (including online updates to your resources, reverse DNS services,
> etc.) without fee or contract.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> > On 15 Sep 2022, at 3:41 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
> >
> > John Curran wrote:
> >>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
> >>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
> >
> > Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> >> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
> >
> > Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally
> > been that ARIN would prefer to charge you annually for them, and then
> > "recover" them (take them away from you) if you ever stop paying, or
> > if they ever decide that you are not using them wisely. If you once
> > agree to an ARIN contract, your resources lose their "legacy" status
> > and you become just another sharecropper subject to ARIN's future
> > benevolence or lack thereof.
> >
> > The change recently announced by John Curran will make the situation
> > very slightly worse, by making ARIN's annual fees for legacy resources
> > changeable at their option, instead of being capped by contract. ARIN
> > management could have changed their offer to be better, if they wanted
> > to attract legacy users, but they made an explicit choice to do the
> > opposite.
> >
> > By contrast, RIPE has developed a much more welcoming stance on legacy
> > resources, including:
> >
> > * retaining the legacy status of resources after a transfer or sale
> > * allowing resources to be registered without paying annual fees to RIPE
> > (merely paying a one-time transaction fee), so that later non-payment
> > of annual fees can't be used as an excuse to steal the resources.
> > * agreeing that RIPE members will keep all their legacy resources even if
> > they later cease to be RIPE members
> >
> > You are within the RIPE service area if your network touches Europe,
> > northern Asia, or Greenland. This can be as simple as having a rented
> > or donated server located in Europe, or as complicated as running a
> > worldwide service provider. If you have a presence there, you can
> > transfer your worldwide resources out from under ARIN policies and put
> > them under RIPE's jurisdiction instead.
> >
> > Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented
> > bureaucracy, and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above
> > treatment may require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it,
> > rather than accepting the defaults. But their motives are more
> > benevolent than ARIN's toward legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly
> > seems to want to gather in legacy resource holders, either as RIPE
> > members or not, without reducing any of the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.
> >
> > Other RIRs may have other good or bad policies about legacy resource
> > holders. As Randy proposed, consult a lawyer competent in legacy
> > domain registration issues before making any changes.
> >
> > John
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

> You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
> anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders.

the rpki design cabal assumed the iana would be the rpki root. rir
power players blocked that. so each rir is 0/0. brilliant, eh?

randy

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 7:07 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
> > You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
> > anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders.
>
> the rpki design cabal assumed the iana would be the rpki root. rir
> power players blocked that. so each rir is 0/0. brilliant, eh?

I'm not fond of that decision either, but at this point it is how it
is. We already have the operation of inter-RIR reverse DNS
synchronization since each /8 is not single-RIR anymore, and I believe
a similar mechanism could have allowed for a single RPKI root.

But I note that the 0/0 trust anchors preceded IANA transition to PTI,
and that even after the transition, we still have an organization that
doesn't have jurisdictional immunity in the US to prevent possible
petty challenges to the system. So the world at large still benefits
from the multiple trust anchor design, when all trade-offs are
accounted for.


Rubens

An interesting idea, but like others have said I think the ship may have sailed for RPKI. Really I have no problem with the ARIN fees. They are a drop in the bucket for most network budgets. In fact as a legacy holder I would gladly pay the same as an RIR-allocated resource holder if it would allow the use of the more advanced services. It's the ownership question and RSA/LRSA language that throws the wrench in everything.

As John said " I will note that ARIN’s approach is the result of aiming for a different target – that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.". If that's the goal, give us the option to pay the same without all the legal mess around signing the RSA/LRSA. I'm sure that's what has been holding some organizations back for the couple decades mentioned. It has been the major stumbling point for a few of the ones I've been part of over the years.

Tom Krenn
Network Architect
Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology




-----Original Message-----
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:56 PM
To: Tom Krenn <Tom.Krenn@hennepin.us>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>; John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)

You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders. As you mentioned, that would probably have a price tag attached to it to cover the costs for such operations, but a contract could stay away from ownership issues and not either say the blocks are yours or that the blocks could be taken from you. Pay for the services, get RPKI; don't pay them, RPKI ROAs expire.

I have a feeling that the recurring cost would be higher than using the scale that the RIR system has in providing those services, and that doing RIR-shopping (like what was already suggested here, moving the resources to RIPE) is simpler and more cost effective. But this would at least expose the real costs without making the RIR-allocated resource holders subsidize legacy resource holders, which is the good thing I see in the direction ARIN is going.

Rubens

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 5:18 AM Tom Krenn via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> Speaking from the enterprise / end site perspective I would bet there are a lot of legacy holders that other than maybe updating their reverse DNS records once or twice haven’t looked at ARIN policies or their allocation since the late 1980s. In most cases there really is not strong technical reason to, the stuff just keeps working.
>
> We are put in kind of an awkward place by the current policies. On one
> hand some of us would like to be good Internet citizens and implement
> things like IRR and RPKI for our resources to help the larger
> community. But show the RSA/LRSA to your lawyers with the
> justification that "I would like to implement RPKI, but everything
> will keep working even if we don't." You can bet they will never jump
> on board. On one hand there is a push from ARIN and the larger
> community to use these advanced services, but on the other hand the
> fees and risk far outweigh the benefits. (Heck the fees aren’t even
> that big of a deal, just the risk of loosing control of our legacy
> allocations.)
>
> Tom Krenn
> Network Architect
> Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tom.krenn=hennepin.us@nanog.org> On Behalf
> Of John Curran
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 3:35 PM
> To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: [External] Re: Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA
> entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of
> the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December
> 2023)
>
> CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.
>
> John -
>
> Your summary is not inaccurate; I will note that ARIN’s approach is the result of aiming for a different target – that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.
>
> For more than two decades legacy resource holders have been provided the opportunity to normalize their relations with ARIN by entry into an LRSA - thus receiving the same services on the same terms and conditions as all others in the region (and also with a favorable fee cap applied to their total annual registry fees.) While many folks have taken advantage of that offer over the years, it’s quite possible that all of those interested have already considered the matter and hence going forward we are returning to the refrain of the entire community in seeking the lowest fees applied equitably to all in the region.
>
> As we’ve recently added more advanced services that may be of interest to many in the community (RPKI and authenticated IRR) and also have just made a favorable simplification to the RSA in section 7 (an area that has been problematic for some organizations in the past), it is important that ARIN not subset availability of the legacy fee cap without significant notice, as there many be a few folks out there who were unaware of LRSA with fee cap availability and/or haven’t recently taken a look at the various tradeoffs.
>
> In any case, legacy resource holders who don’t care for these advanced
> services (whose development and maintenance is paid for by the ARIN
> community) can simply continue to maintain their legacy resources in
> the ARIN registry. They do not have to do anything, as ARIN is
> continuing to provide basic registration services to the thousands of
> non-contracted legacy resource holders (including online updates to
> your resources, reverse DNS services,
> etc.) without fee or contract.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> > On 15 Sep 2022, at 3:41 PM, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> wrote:
> >
> > John Curran wrote:
> >>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
> >>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
> >
> > Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> >> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
> >
> > Amen to that. ARIN's stance on legacy resources has traditionally
> > been that ARIN would prefer to charge you annually for them, and
> > then "recover" them (take them away from you) if you ever stop
> > paying, or if they ever decide that you are not using them wisely.
> > If you once agree to an ARIN contract, your resources lose their
> > "legacy" status and you become just another sharecropper subject to
> > ARIN's future benevolence or lack thereof.
> >
> > The change recently announced by John Curran will make the situation
> > very slightly worse, by making ARIN's annual fees for legacy
> > resources changeable at their option, instead of being capped by
> > contract. ARIN management could have changed their offer to be
> > better, if they wanted to attract legacy users, but they made an
> > explicit choice to do the opposite.
> >
> > By contrast, RIPE has developed a much more welcoming stance on
> > legacy resources, including:
> >
> > * retaining the legacy status of resources after a transfer or
> > sale
> > * allowing resources to be registered without paying annual fees to RIPE
> > (merely paying a one-time transaction fee), so that later non-payment
> > of annual fees can't be used as an excuse to steal the resources.
> > * agreeing that RIPE members will keep all their legacy resources even if
> > they later cease to be RIPE members
> >
> > You are within the RIPE service area if your network touches Europe,
> > northern Asia, or Greenland. This can be as simple as having a
> > rented or donated server located in Europe, or as complicated as
> > running a worldwide service provider. If you have a presence there,
> > you can transfer your worldwide resources out from under ARIN
> > policies and put them under RIPE's jurisdiction instead.
> >
> > Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented
> > bureaucracy, and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above
> > treatment may require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it,
> > rather than accepting the defaults. But their motives are more
> > benevolent than ARIN's toward legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly
> > seems to want to gather in legacy resource holders, either as RIPE
> > members or not, without reducing any of the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.
> >
> > Other RIRs may have other good or bad policies about legacy resource
> > holders. As Randy proposed, consult a lawyer competent in legacy
> > domain registration issues before making any changes.
> >
> > John
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.


Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:07 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
> > anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders.
>
> the rpki design cabal assumed the iana would be the rpki root. rir
> power players blocked that. so each rir is 0/0. brilliant, eh?

Which means that all you'd need is a volunteer group with "street
cred" to set up an RPKI for legacy holders and then convince folks to
use their trust anchor too. Or have I missed something?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:46 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:07 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > > You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
> > > anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders.
> >
> > the rpki design cabal assumed the iana would be the rpki root. rir
> > power players blocked that. so each rir is 0/0. brilliant, eh?
>
> Which means that all you'd need is a volunteer group with "street
> cred" to set up an RPKI for legacy holders and then convince folks to
> use their trust anchor too. Or have I missed something?

Merit, perhaps ?

But they would need to do a much stricter validation that they
currently have in RADB, which is more like Sledgehammer motto "Trust
me, I know what I'm doing".


Rubens

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 7:32 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:46 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:07 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > > > You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
> > > > anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders.
> > >
> > > the rpki design cabal assumed the iana would be the rpki root. rir
> > > power players blocked that. so each rir is 0/0. brilliant, eh?
> >
> > Which means that all you'd need is a volunteer group with "street
> > cred" to set up an RPKI for legacy holders and then convince folks to
> > use their trust anchor too. Or have I missed something?
>
> Merit, perhaps ?
>
> But they would need to do a much stricter validation that they
> currently have in RADB, which is more like Sledgehammer motto "Trust
> me, I know what I'm doing".

Hi Rubens,

Last I checked, Merit was -really- expensive for RADB. I don't really
see getting more than about 5 figures total per year out of the legacy
registrants for RPKI, if that much. I think it'd have to be a
volunteer effort or something funded by someone who finds it to their
advantage that the legacy registrants publish RPKI records. Like the
way Letsencrypt is funded.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:41 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 7:32 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:46 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:07 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > > > > You could try suggesting IANA/PTI/ICANN to have a different RPKI trust
> > > > > anchor and provide such services to legacy block holders.
> > > >
> > > > the rpki design cabal assumed the iana would be the rpki root. rir
> > > > power players blocked that. so each rir is 0/0. brilliant, eh?
> > >
> > > Which means that all you'd need is a volunteer group with "street
> > > cred" to set up an RPKI for legacy holders and then convince folks to
> > > use their trust anchor too. Or have I missed something?
> >
> > Merit, perhaps ?
> >
> > But they would need to do a much stricter validation that they
> > currently have in RADB, which is more like Sledgehammer motto "Trust
> > me, I know what I'm doing".
>
> Hi Rubens,
>
> Last I checked, Merit was -really- expensive for RADB. I don't really
> see getting more than about 5 figures total per year out of the legacy
> registrants for RPKI, if that much. I think it'd have to be a
> volunteer effort or something funded by someone who finds it to their
> advantage that the legacy registrants publish RPKI records. Like the
> way Letsencrypt is funded.


Legacy holders are sitting on millions or billions worth of assets.
RADB USD 595 a year is pennies in comparison, and USD 1k or 2k a year
for the RPKI service would still be 1E-10 of the asset value.

Rubens

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 7:46 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Legacy holders are sitting on millions or billions worth of assets.
> RADB USD 595 a year is pennies in comparison, and USD 1k or 2k a year
> for the RPKI service would still be 1E-10 of the asset value.

Hi Rubens,

Well, I'm one of the people who'd publish RPKI records for my /23 if I
had the ability to do so and I definitely would NOT pay merit $595/yr
(let alone $1k or $2k) to gain that ability. YMMV but I'm willing to
bet there's not enough money out there to fund it with direct user
fees and even if there was, the level of participation in the presence
of more than trivial user fees would be too low to be worth the
effort.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:56 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 7:46 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Legacy holders are sitting on millions or billions worth of assets.
> > RADB USD 595 a year is pennies in comparison, and USD 1k or 2k a year
> > for the RPKI service would still be 1E-10 of the asset value.
>
> Hi Rubens,
>
> Well, I'm one of the people who'd publish RPKI records for my /23 if I
> had the ability to do so and I definitely would NOT pay merit $595/yr
> (let alone $1k or $2k) to gain that ability. YMMV but I'm willing to
> bet there's not enough money out there to fund it with direct user
> fees and even if there was, the level of participation in the presence
> of more than trivial user fees would be too low to be worth the
> effort.


Your /23 is worth only USD 30k, so you are definitely not in a
position to find that affordable.
It seems ARIN LRSA with the current fees and caps would be the best
option, and that option has a time limit.


Rubens

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:51 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:56 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > Well, I'm one of the people who'd publish RPKI records for my /23 if I
> > had the ability to do so and I definitely would NOT pay merit $595/yr
> > (let alone $1k or $2k) to gain that ability. YMMV but I'm willing to
> > bet there's not enough money out there to fund it with direct user
> > fees and even if there was, the level of participation in the presence
> > of more than trivial user fees would be too low to be worth the
> > effort.
>
> Your /23 is worth only USD 30k, so you are definitely not in a
> position to find that affordable.
> It seems ARIN LRSA with the current fees and caps would be the best
> option, and that option has a time limit.

No, the best option for me right now is that I just don't participate
in RPKI and the system has one less participant. And that's a shame.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:55 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:51 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:56 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > > Well, I'm one of the people who'd publish RPKI records for my /23 if I
> > > had the ability to do so and I definitely would NOT pay merit $595/yr
> > > (let alone $1k or $2k) to gain that ability. YMMV but I'm willing to
> > > bet there's not enough money out there to fund it with direct user
> > > fees and even if there was, the level of participation in the presence
> > > of more than trivial user fees would be too low to be worth the
> > > effort.
> >
> > Your /23 is worth only USD 30k, so you are definitely not in a
> > position to find that affordable.
> > It seems ARIN LRSA with the current fees and caps would be the best
> > option, and that option has a time limit.
>
> No, the best option for me right now is that I just don't participate
> in RPKI and the system has one less participant. And that's a shame.

That's only true in the current environment where RPKI is only used to
invalidate bogus routes. When any reachability for RPKI-unknowns is
lost, that will change. But it will be too late then to join the
system, so you just sell it for USD 50k and start using NAT.

Just a calculation: current LRSA fee is USD 150, cap is 25 USD per
year increase. 2X-Small is USD 500 per year, so it will take 14 years
to reach that level. Pick your poison, NAT or LRSA.


Rubens



Rubens

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 9:09 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:55 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > No, the best option for me right now is that I just don't participate
> > in RPKI and the system has one less participant. And that's a shame.
>
> That's only true in the current environment where RPKI is only used to
> invalidate bogus routes. When any reachability for RPKI-unknowns is
> lost, that will change.

Hi Rubens,

If you want to bet me on folks ever deciding to discard RPKI-unknowns
down in the legacy class C's I'll be happy to take your money.


> But it will be too late then to join the
> system, so you just sell it for USD 50k and start using NAT.

Since I can convert to the regular ARIN RSA at any time and gain
access to RPKI the concept of "too late" doesn't really exist here.


> Just a calculation: current LRSA fee is USD 150, cap is 25 USD per
> year increase. 2X-Small is USD 500 per year, so it will take 14 years
> to reach that level. Pick your poison, NAT or LRSA.

Yah, except at some point I'll get a /48 bumping my $150/yr AS fee up
to a $250/yr service fee. Then the delta to add my legacy /23 is only
$250. In 4 years, the LRSA fee will be $250, the same amount. But
that's not the break-even point. If I wait one year, its $250*3=$750
vs $150+$175+$200+$225=$750. I break even on the legacy fee schedule
by waiting just one year and then taking the regular annual fee.

Actually, it's a little funkier than that because my AS and /23 are
under different org ids. When I do all this, I'll have to pay the one
time $500 M&A fee or else in year 5 the LRSA for the /23 plus the
$250/yr for IPv6 and an AS will actually cost more than $500/yr and
will keep growing annually to $750.

Anyway, the risk/reward calculation for NOT signing the LRSA right now
is really a no-brainer. It's just unfortunate that means I won't get
an early start on RPKI.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:45 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 9:09 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:55 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > > No, the best option for me right now is that I just don't participate
> > > in RPKI and the system has one less participant. And that's a shame.
> >
> > That's only true in the current environment where RPKI is only used to
> > invalidate bogus routes. When any reachability for RPKI-unknowns is
> > lost, that will change.
>
> Hi Rubens,
>
> If you want to bet me on folks ever deciding to discard RPKI-unknowns
> down in the legacy class C's I'll be happy to take your money.

I don't think people will look at even the class, and definitively not
to legacy or non-legacy partitions.
They will either drop it all, or not drop it at all.

Note that when the only IP blocks that spammers and abusers can inject
in the system are non-signed ones, those blocks will get bad
reputations pretty fast. So the legacy holders use case for RPKI might
come sooner than you think.

> Anyway, the risk/reward calculation for NOT signing the LRSA right now
> is really a no-brainer. It's just unfortunate that means I won't get
> an early start on RPKI.

Discarding RPKI-invalids is something you can do right now and that
doesn't come with a price tag. Good BCP38 and RPKI-invalid hygiene is
the thankless gift you can give to the community.


Rubens

"Anyway, the risk/reward calculation for NOT signing the LRSA right now is really a no-brainer. It's just unfortunate that means I won't get an early start on RPKI."

Excellent 1 line summary!

Tom Krenn
Network Architect
Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology




-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tom.krenn=hennepin.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:45 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 9:09 PM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:55 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> > No, the best option for me right now is that I just don't
> > participate in RPKI and the system has one less participant. And that's a shame.
>
> That's only true in the current environment where RPKI is only used to
> invalidate bogus routes. When any reachability for RPKI-unknowns is
> lost, that will change.

Hi Rubens,

If you want to bet me on folks ever deciding to discard RPKI-unknowns down in the legacy class C's I'll be happy to take your money.


> But it will be too late then to join the system, so you just sell it
> for USD 50k and start using NAT.

Since I can convert to the regular ARIN RSA at any time and gain access to RPKI the concept of "too late" doesn't really exist here.


> Just a calculation: current LRSA fee is USD 150, cap is 25 USD per
> year increase. 2X-Small is USD 500 per year, so it will take 14 years
> to reach that level. Pick your poison, NAT or LRSA.

Yah, except at some point I'll get a /48 bumping my $150/yr AS fee up to a $250/yr service fee. Then the delta to add my legacy /23 is only $250. In 4 years, the LRSA fee will be $250, the same amount. But that's not the break-even point. If I wait one year, its $250*3=$750 vs $150+$175+$200+$225=$750. I break even on the legacy fee schedule by waiting just one year and then taking the regular annual fee.

Actually, it's a little funkier than that because my AS and /23 are under different org ids. When I do all this, I'll have to pay the one time $500 M&A fee or else in year 5 the LRSA for the /23 plus the $250/yr for IPv6 and an AS will actually cost more than $500/yr and will keep growing annually to $750.

Anyway, the risk/reward calculation for NOT signing the LRSA right now is really a no-brainer. It's just unfortunate that means I won't get an early start on RPKI.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
For hire. https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbill.herrin.us%2Fresume%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ctom.krenn%40hennepin.us%7C4ffca4d22059437c9bba08da979e4c4e%7C8aefdf9f878046bf8fb74c924653a8be%7C0%7C0%7C637989003408555221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=cx9wE8mascaw3qbbK1J5w7q0KgqydLxnvkkpmJXK5W4%3D&amp;reserved=0


Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

I highly recommend that legacy holders who wish to ensure that their rights are respected transfer their registrations to RIPE-NCC, whether they have signed the LRSA or not.

Transferring to RIPE-NCC as Legacy without Contract will afford you full respect for your rights in your resources in perpetuity (or at least as long as RIPE-NCC lasts) without requiring a contract and without having to pay fees.

If you need to establish presence in Europe to satisfy RIPE’s requirements, a cheap virtual machine can be leased for a month or two to get through the process and is never verified or validated thereafter.

I was an early signatory to the LRSA thinking I was doing the right thing. After the ARIN board changed end users from fee-per-ORG to fee-per-resource in order to get around the fee cap and bifurcated my org into two orgs (allowing them to charge even more), I came to regret that decision. Since transferring my legacy resources to RIPE-NCC, I have been considerably happier.

Owen


> On Sep 13, 2022, at 18:24 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
>
> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
>
> randy

> Moving to RIPE is not an unalloyed good; Europeans invented bureaucracy,
> and RIPE pursues it with vigor. And getting the above treatment may
> require firmly asserting to RIPE that you want it, rather than accepting
> the defaults. But their motives are more benevolent than ARIN's toward
> legacy resource holders; RIPE honestly seems to want to gather in legacy
> resource holders, either as RIPE members or not, without reducing any of
> the holders' rights or abilities. I commend them for that.

I have to say that my experience transferring to RIPE-NCC was quite pleasant
and involved quite minimal bureaucratic hassle. I did have to select “Legacy
without contract” on one form and reassert that in reply to one email, but that
was about the extent of it.

YMMV.

Owen

* nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) [Sun 18 Sep 2022, 19:53 CEST]:
>I highly recommend that legacy holders who wish to ensure that their
>rights are respected transfer their registrations to RIPE-NCC,
>whether they have signed the LRSA or not.

Would you say that in hindsight you would have advocated differently
when ARIN decided not to allow transfer of IPv6 resources to other
RIRs?


-- Niels.

>
> I highly recommend that legacy holders who wish to ensure that their
> rights are respected transfer their registrations to RIPE-NCC, whether they
> have signed the LRSA or not.
>

For the uninitiated, this is the crux of the disagreements. (Before I
begin, this is not a personal shot at Owen or anybody else.)

Allocations made before the RIR systems were created have no contracts or
covenants attached. Allocations made from the RIRs do.

The 'rights' claimed by legacy holders are therefore unenumerated ; their
argument is essentially 'nothing says I don't have these rights, so I say I
do'. This leads to the current situation, where the legacy holders don't
really want any case law or contractual agreements to enumerate what rights
they may (or may not) have, because if that happens, they would be
prevented from asserting some new right in the future. We all I think
acknowledge that technology often races out in front of the law, this
situation is no different.

Many people have legitimate concerns about policies at different RIRs, and
this isn't a shot at those either. But fundamentally, this has meant there
has been a 2 tier system since the inception of the RIRs that legacy
holders don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 1:52 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
wrote:

> I highly recommend that legacy holders who wish to ensure that their
> rights are respected transfer their registrations to RIPE-NCC, whether they
> have signed the LRSA or not.
>
> Transferring to RIPE-NCC as Legacy without Contract will afford you full
> respect for your rights in your resources in perpetuity (or at least as
> long as RIPE-NCC lasts) without requiring a contract and without having to
> pay fees.
>
> If you need to establish presence in Europe to satisfy RIPE’s
> requirements, a cheap virtual machine can be leased for a month or two to
> get through the process and is never verified or validated thereafter.
>
> I was an early signatory to the LRSA thinking I was doing the right thing.
> After the ARIN board changed end users from fee-per-ORG to fee-per-resource
> in order to get around the fee cap and bifurcated my org into two orgs
> (allowing them to charge even more), I came to regret that decision. Since
> transferring my legacy resources to RIPE-NCC, I have been considerably
> happier.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 2022, at 18:24 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
> >> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
> >
> > consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
> >
> > randy
>
>

Tom -

That’s one way of characterizing the situation, but there’s also a deeper aspect that may not be readily apparent –

The nature of the Internet number registry system is inherently different than that a normal customer / vendor relationship,
in that the entire concept underlying the system is that it would be the industry engaged in a form of self-regulation (rather
than folks simply receiving a service paid for and defined by the US Government, or procuring some off-the-shelf commercial
service); i.e., the users of the Internet number registry system were intended to be the stakeholders that governed each of
the regional Internet registries, with each RIR acting a steward of the Internet number resources in its region.

At ARIN’s inception, legacy resource holders were provided the same services as before w/o any requirement to pay a fee or
enter into a contract – that’s a very reasonable transition approach. Alas, there was no consideration given to further evolution
of services/rights for legacy resource holders, as the assumption was that those desiring some form of evolution of their RIR
services would become stakeholders and discuss it with the rest of the community via participation in governance of their
regional Internet number registry. The concept of number resources that were part of – but somehow external to the
governance of the Internet number registry in perpetuity – actually runs contrary to the very concept of self-regulating
community-based stewardship, and hence a significant part of disconnect behind the disagreements that we see here.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On 19 Sep 2022, at 10:16 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc<mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:

I highly recommend that legacy holders who wish to ensure that their rights are respected transfer their registrations to RIPE-NCC, whether they have signed the LRSA or not.

For the uninitiated, this is the crux of the disagreements. (Before I begin, this is not a personal shot at Owen or anybody else.)

Allocations made before the RIR systems were created have no contracts or covenants attached. Allocations made from the RIRs do.

The 'rights' claimed by legacy holders are therefore unenumerated ; their argument is essentially 'nothing says I don't have these rights, so I say I do'. This leads to the current situation, where the legacy holders don't really want any case law or contractual agreements to enumerate what rights they may (or may not) have, because if that happens, they would be prevented from asserting some new right in the future. We all I think acknowledge that technology often races out in front of the law, this situation is no different.

Many people have legitimate concerns about policies at different RIRs, and this isn't a shot at those either. But fundamentally, this has meant there has been a 2 tier system since the inception of the RIRs that legacy holders don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 1:52 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
I highly recommend that legacy holders who wish to ensure that their rights are respected transfer their registrations to RIPE-NCC, whether they have signed the LRSA or not.

Transferring to RIPE-NCC as Legacy without Contract will afford you full respect for your rights in your resources in perpetuity (or at least as long as RIPE-NCC lasts) without requiring a contract and without having to pay fees.

If you need to establish presence in Europe to satisfy RIPE’s requirements, a cheap virtual machine can be leased for a month or two to get through the process and is never verified or validated thereafter.

I was an early signatory to the LRSA thinking I was doing the right thing. After the ARIN board changed end users from fee-per-ORG to fee-per-resource in order to get around the fee cap and bifurcated my org into two orgs (allowing them to charge even more), I came to regret that decision. Since transferring my legacy resources to RIPE-NCC, I have been considerably happier.

Owen


> On Sep 13, 2022, at 18:24 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
>
>> We strongly encourage all legacy resource holders who have not yet
>> signed an LRSA to cover their legacy resources to
>
> consult a competent lawyer before signing an LRSA
>
> randy

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:16 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
> Allocations made before the RIR systems were created have no
> contracts or covenants attached. Allocations made from the RIRs do.
>
> The 'rights' claimed by legacy holders are therefore unenumerated ;
> their argument is essentially 'nothing says I don't have these rights,
> so I say I do'.

Not because I "say" I do but because legal precedent has said that
folks in roughly comparable situations in the past did. Nothing
exactly the same or there wouldn't be any ambiguity but similar enough
for me to think I have rights.


> This leads to the current situation, where the legacy
> holders don't really want any case law or contractual agreements
> to enumerate what rights they may (or may not) have, because if
> that happens, they would be prevented from asserting some new
> right in the future. We all I think acknowledge that technology
> often races out in front of the law, this situation is no different.

I'd be happy to have case law or a contract that clarifies the
situation, wherever that might end up. I won't force the matter unless
ARIN puts me in a position where it's either go to court or knuckle
under. Despite the war of words, ARIN has shown no signs of doing so.
As for a contract, if ARIN offered an acceptable contract or was
willing to negotiate toward an acceptable contract, I would as happily
clarify my rights that way. To my perspective (and I've said this many
times in the past) it is ARIN who would prefer not to have the matter
clarified as it would certainly be clarified that ARIN has less power
over the legacy registrations than their RSA contract requests and
elements of that clarification could spill over into the contracted
resources.

The RSA contract ARIN offers registrants boils down to this: so long
as you pay us, you can use IP addresses the way we say you can. The
way we say you can is subject to change at any time according to the
change process which we can replace at any time at the pleasure of our
board of trustees who are chosen through a process that they can
change at any time. There's not even anything in the contract that
ARIN's application of policy can be restricted to the policies in
effect at the time the issuance of the number resources or that those
policies won't change in a manner which results in the revocation of
those resources when used as represented to ARIN that they would be.
ARIN's NRPM contract is devoid of any -meaningful- protections for the
registrant; all rights are reserved to ARIN.

I hope you understand why I would choose ambiguous rights over no rights at all.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

This is where things keep getting held up on the legal side. At least in my experience. It would be great if something could be expanded upon in the RSA to clarify some rights.

Has ARIN ever worked with the IANA, NSF, OSTP, DOJ, etc to clarify things? I recall this letter https://www.arin.net/vault/resources/legacy/ARIN-Rudolph-NSF-18OCT2012.pdf where an argument is made. But so far there has been no statement by OSTP or DoC/NTIA that would help legacy holders navigate this. Just ARIN's opinion (above).

Again fees are not an issue, but the vague language stating any policy may change at any time is a big show stopper.

" The RSA contract ARIN offers registrants boils down to this: so long as you pay us, you can use IP addresses the way we say you can. The way we say you can is subject to change at any time according to the change process which we can replace at any time at the pleasure of our board of trustees who are chosen through a process that they can change at any time. There's not even anything in the contract that ARIN's application of policy can be restricted to the policies in effect at the time the issuance of the number resources or that those policies won't change in a manner which results in the revocation of those resources when used as represented to ARIN that they would be.
ARIN's NRPM contract is devoid of any -meaningful- protections for the registrant; all rights are reserved to ARIN.

I hope you understand why I would choose ambiguous rights over no rights at all."

That said I do plan to have my org apply for membership since we do have IPv6 resources under RSA. I'm just not sure one more voice asking for clarity is going to have any real impact.

Tom Krenn
Network Architect
Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology




-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tom.krenn=hennepin.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: [External] Re: Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)

CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:16 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
> Allocations made before the RIR systems were created have no contracts
> or covenants attached. Allocations made from the RIRs do.
>
> The 'rights' claimed by legacy holders are therefore unenumerated ;
> their argument is essentially 'nothing says I don't have these rights,
> so I say I do'.

Not because I "say" I do but because legal precedent has said that folks in roughly comparable situations in the past did. Nothing exactly the same or there wouldn't be any ambiguity but similar enough for me to think I have rights.


> This leads to the current situation, where the legacy holders don't
> really want any case law or contractual agreements to enumerate what
> rights they may (or may not) have, because if that happens, they would
> be prevented from asserting some new right in the future. We all I
> think acknowledge that technology often races out in front of the law,
> this situation is no different.

I'd be happy to have case law or a contract that clarifies the situation, wherever that might end up. I won't force the matter unless ARIN puts me in a position where it's either go to court or knuckle under. Despite the war of words, ARIN has shown no signs of doing so.
As for a contract, if ARIN offered an acceptable contract or was willing to negotiate toward an acceptable contract, I would as happily clarify my rights that way. To my perspective (and I've said this many times in the past) it is ARIN who would prefer not to have the matter clarified as it would certainly be clarified that ARIN has less power over the legacy registrations than their RSA contract requests and elements of that clarification could spill over into the contracted resources.

The RSA contract ARIN offers registrants boils down to this: so long as you pay us, you can use IP addresses the way we say you can. The way we say you can is subject to change at any time according to the change process which we can replace at any time at the pleasure of our board of trustees who are chosen through a process that they can change at any time. There's not even anything in the contract that ARIN's application of policy can be restricted to the policies in effect at the time the issuance of the number resources or that those policies won't change in a manner which results in the revocation of those resources when used as represented to ARIN that they would be.
ARIN's NRPM contract is devoid of any -meaningful- protections for the registrant; all rights are reserved to ARIN.

I hope you understand why I would choose ambiguous rights over no rights at all.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
For hire. https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbill.herrin.us%2Fresume%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ctom.krenn%40hennepin.us%7C0a153d2f901e4b23fa4708da9a57270f%7C8aefdf9f878046bf8fb74c924653a8be%7C0%7C0%7C637991996354604010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=BshBonuE9jgzq370ZFaZcNf0Yo%2Fk0AwadNTpC7EhHAE%3D&amp;reserved=0


Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Bill-

The RSA contract ARIN offers registrants boils down to this: so long
> as you pay us, you can use IP addresses the way we say you can. The
> way we say you can is subject to change at any time according to the
> change process which we can replace at any time at the pleasure of our
> board of trustees who are chosen through a process that they can
> change at any time.


A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound by all
current and future policies that come from the Policy Development Process.
The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff. So by
definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy on how
addresses were used.


> There's not even anything in the contract that
> ARIN's application of policy can be restricted to the policies in
> effect at the time the issuance of the number resources or that those
> policies won't change in a manner which results in the revocation of
> those resources when used as represented to ARIN that they would be.
> ARIN's NRPM contract is devoid of any -meaningful- protections for the
> registrant; all rights are reserved to ARIN.
>

Which are the same terms everyone else with a post-ARIN allocation has to
follow. Reinforcing the 2 tier system that legacy holders don't have to
follow the same rules as the rest of us.


> I hope you understand why I would choose ambiguous rights over no rights
> at all.
>

To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a legacy
allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have the flexibility to do
things with this space that I wouldn't have if I had gotten it assigned
post RIR. I don't know what those things might be, and I don't care if
others don't get to do those things too."

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:53 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:16 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
> > Allocations made before the RIR systems were created have no
> > contracts or covenants attached. Allocations made from the RIRs do.
> >
> > The 'rights' claimed by legacy holders are therefore unenumerated ;
> > their argument is essentially 'nothing says I don't have these rights,
> > so I say I do'.
>
> Not because I "say" I do but because legal precedent has said that
> folks in roughly comparable situations in the past did. Nothing
> exactly the same or there wouldn't be any ambiguity but similar enough
> for me to think I have rights.
>
>
> > This leads to the current situation, where the legacy
> > holders don't really want any case law or contractual agreements
> > to enumerate what rights they may (or may not) have, because if
> > that happens, they would be prevented from asserting some new
> > right in the future. We all I think acknowledge that technology
> > often races out in front of the law, this situation is no different.
>
> I'd be happy to have case law or a contract that clarifies the
> situation, wherever that might end up. I won't force the matter unless
> ARIN puts me in a position where it's either go to court or knuckle
> under. Despite the war of words, ARIN has shown no signs of doing so.
> As for a contract, if ARIN offered an acceptable contract or was
> willing to negotiate toward an acceptable contract, I would as happily
> clarify my rights that way. To my perspective (and I've said this many
> times in the past) it is ARIN who would prefer not to have the matter
> clarified as it would certainly be clarified that ARIN has less power
> over the legacy registrations than their RSA contract requests and
> elements of that clarification could spill over into the contracted
> resources.
>
> The RSA contract ARIN offers registrants boils down to this: so long
> as you pay us, you can use IP addresses the way we say you can. The
> way we say you can is subject to change at any time according to the
> change process which we can replace at any time at the pleasure of our
> board of trustees who are chosen through a process that they can
> change at any time. There's not even anything in the contract that
> ARIN's application of policy can be restricted to the policies in
> effect at the time the issuance of the number resources or that those
> policies won't change in a manner which results in the revocation of
> those resources when used as represented to ARIN that they would be.
> ARIN's NRPM contract is devoid of any -meaningful- protections for the
> registrant; all rights are reserved to ARIN.
>
> I hope you understand why I would choose ambiguous rights over no rights
> at all.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
>

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
> A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound
> by all current and future policies that come from the Policy Development
> Process. The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff.
> So by definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy
> on how addresses were used.

The board of trustees can change the policy development process in
arbitrary ways at any time. They have done so more than once since
ARIN's inception. Moreover, in the current process the board has
unilateral authority to reject or adjust proposals which come out of
the process before adoption. And lest you forget, the current process
starts with the advisory council who can originate and exercise
complete control over the text of policy proposals.

So structurally, ARIN and its officials can indeed unilaterally decide
to change a policy on how addresses are used. They don't currently.
But nothing in the law or the contract prevents it.


> To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a
> legacy allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have
> the flexibility to do things with this space that I wouldn't have
> if I had gotten it assigned post RIR. I don't know what those
> things might be, and I don't care if others don't get to do those things too."

For what it's worth, in pursuing equalization I'd rather see the
contractees' rights liberalized than my own rights restricted.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On 19 Sep 2022, at 12:29 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc<mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound
by all current and future policies that come from the Policy Development
Process. The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff.
So by definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy
on how addresses were used.

The board of trustees can change the policy development process in
arbitrary ways at any time.

Presently correct. The ARIN Policy Development Process is an adopted document of the ARIN Board,
and while the practice has been to consult with the community before making changes (such as the
consultation open presently - https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220906-consultopen/) nothing
presently would prevent the Board from changing the PDP absent such a community consultation...

The same could have been said for ARIN's RSA at one point, but given the high stability the Board
opted to change that so require a membership vote to change the terms and conditions for existing
RSA holders (outside of changes necessary to conform with changes to prevailing law.). It’s quite
possible that we’ll get to that same level of stability with the PDP at some point, but presently the
member-elected Board is the one that holds the authority over the policy development process.

(I’ll note, as an aside, that making changes to the PDP also subject to member ratification really
doesn’t change the status quo for legacy resource holders if opt not to become members…)

They have done so more than once since ARIN's inception.

The ARIN PDP has indeed been changed multiple times, but I’d disagree with the characterization
that you suggest (that such changes were “arbitrary”) given that the community was informed in
advance each time with the reasoning behind the changes and an opportunity to provide feedback.

Moreover, in the current process the board has
unilateral authority to reject or adjust proposals which come out of
the process before adoption.

Not quite correct - the ARIN Board presently has the ability to adopt, reject or remand” policies
that come out of the process - it cannot “adjust” such policies (although to the same effect, it has
authority under the present PDP to initiate emergency policy or suspend existing policy for similar
reason.)

As there is presently a consultation open, feel free to provide feedback on how you’d like the PDP
to operate, powers of the Board therein, and change process for PDP - the consultation is open to
all, as noted earlier.

And lest you forget, the current process
starts with the advisory council who can originate and exercise
complete control over the text of policy proposals.

That is correct, but then again, the ARIN AC has to ultimately end up with policies that are fair,
technically sound, and supported by the community before they can recommend them to the
ARIN Board for adoption.

So structurally, ARIN and its officials can indeed unilaterally decide
to change a policy on how addresses are used. They don't currently.
But nothing in the law or the contract prevents it.

See above - ARIN’s Board is actually more tightly constrained when it comes to its ability to arbitrarily
set policy then you suggest, but again the current PDP is presently up under community consultation
if you’d like it to operate differently.

To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a
legacy allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have
the flexibility to do things with this space that I wouldn't have
if I had gotten it assigned post RIR. I don't know what those
things might be, and I don't care if others don't get to do those things too."

For what it's worth, in pursuing equalization I'd rather see the
contractees' rights liberalized than my own rights restricted.

That’s already occurred several times, as the merging of the LRSA and RSA into a single agreement
resulted in clearer and more liberal language that was sought by LRSA customers becoming standard
for all customers.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On September 19, 2022 at 10:16 bill@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:04 AM <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:
> > Are IP addresses like houses, though? Aren't they more like other
> > intellectual property such as trademarks or patents? What happens
> > to those when you don't pay the USPTO?
>
> You lose the ability to sue for triple damages. You can only sue for
> injunctions and regular damages.

Put another way in the US, at least, trademarks, at least, do not rely
on USPTO or WIPO for legal force other than those mentioned above.

You don't have to register a trademark with either to claim legal
force.

You just have to be ready to show that your trademark was used in
commerce, not a high barrier, and a use by another party potentially
causes confusion, dilution, reputational &c damage to your use of your
mark, or whatever. That can also include geographic scope (don't make
me type in Trademarks 101 here!)

Trademarks are, at their core, a consumer protection, not a property
right.

Their principle purpose is, for example, so a consumer knows if they
buy a bottle of Coca-Cola beverage it is a product of the Coca-Cola
corporation.

Everything else mostly derives from that principle tho with 200+ years
of practice, legislation, and precedent of course there are other
details.

And vice-versa, use it or lose it, the mark has to represent some
product or service.

Which is why for example the USPTO/WIPO don't allow you to just
register clever names &c and claim rights in those names &c. Well,
they may allow you but it's a legally worthless thing to do.

Compare and contrast to the internet domain system...ahem.

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 1:06 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
> You don't have to register a trademark with either to claim legal
> force.

Trademarks have a fascinating history. Originally they were a
requirement rather than a right: producers of certain commodities were
required to place a distinctive mark to authenticate themselves as the
maker. They were literally a mark of your trade that you placed on the
thing you sold. Forgery of these marks became a problem after which
laws were passed making it illegal to use another's mark. Goes all the
way back to 13th century England.

Modern trademark law, in which it became possible to protect words
instead of line-art, didn't come about until the mid 19th century.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

> On Sep 19, 2022, at 09:50, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>
> ?
>> On 19 Sep 2022, at 12:29 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
>>> A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound
>>> by all current and future policies that come from the Policy Development
>>> Process. The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff.
>>> So by definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy
>>> on how addresses were used.

Read carefully. You describe the current PDP, but Bill is correct that the board has the power to unilaterally change the PDP any way they wish at any time.


>>
>> The board of trustees can change the policy development process in
>> arbitrary ways at any time.
>
> Presently correct. The ARIN Policy Development Process is an adopted document of the ARIN Board,
> and while the practice has been to consult with the community before making changes (such as the
> consultation open presently - https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220906-consultopen/) nothing
> presently would prevent the Board from changing the PDP absent such a community consultation...
>
> The same could have been said for ARIN's RSA at one point, but given the high stability the Board
> opted to change that so require a membership vote to change the terms and conditions for existing
> RSA holders (outside of changes necessary to conform with changes to prevailing law.). It’s quite
> possible that we’ll get to that same level of stability with the PDP at some point, but presently the
> member-elected Board is the one that holds the authority over the policy development process.

Some existing RSA holders (at least some LRSA holders have RSAs that can’t be amended unilaterally and require the consent of the signatory as well as ARIN.

>
> (I’ll note, as an aside, that making changes to the PDP also subject to member ratification really
> doesn’t change the status quo for legacy resource holders if opt not to become members…)

It actually does in that many legacy holders are also members. Also in that it is significantly less likely that the membership at large would support a modification that arbitrarily or capriciously attacks legacy holders than that the board would try to do so as a forcing function towards membership.

>
>> They have done so more than once since ARIN's inception.
>
> The ARIN PDP has indeed been changed multiple times, but I’d disagree with the characterization
> that you suggest (that such changes were “arbitrary”) given that the community was informed in
> advance each time with the reasoning behind the changes and an opportunity to provide feedback.
>

Yes, but there is nothing at present to guarantee that happens in the future.

>> Moreover, in the current process the board has
>> unilateral authority to reject or adjust proposals which come out of
>> the process before adoption.
>
> Not quite correct - the ARIN Board presently has the ability to adopt, reject or remand” policies
> that come out of the process - it cannot “adjust” such policies (although to the same effect, it has
> authority under the present PDP to initiate emergency policy or suspend existing policy for similar
> reason.)

It can. It had. They can merely present the policy changes they want through their own emergency PDP and voila. Admittedly there’s a limit to how long the change lasts (unless they also modify the PDP), but there’s nothing to present that other than the next board election.

>
> As there is presently a consultation open, feel free to provide feedback on how you’d like the PDP
> to operate, powers of the Board therein, and change process for PDP - the consultation is open to
> all, as noted earlier.
>
>> And lest you forget, the current process
>> starts with the advisory council who can originate and exercise
>> complete control over the text of policy proposals.
>
> That is correct, but then again, the ARIN AC has to ultimately end up with policies that are fair,
> technically sound, and supported by the community before they can recommend them to the
> ARIN Board for adoption.

True, but they are also the arbiters of whether or not a policy meets those tests.

>
>> So structurally, ARIN and its officials can indeed unilaterally decide
>> to change a policy on how addresses are used. They don't currently.
>> But nothing in the law or the contract prevents it.
>
> See above - ARIN’s Board is actually more tightly constrained when it comes to its ability to arbitrarily
> set policy then you suggest, but again the current PDP is presently up under community consultation
> if you’d like it to operate differently.

There’s lip service to that effect, but a determined board would not actually be constrained by that language because of the built in workarounds available to them (changing the PDP to remove the safeguards and the emergency PDP for example).

>
>>> To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a
>>> legacy allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have
>>> the flexibility to do things with this space that I wouldn't have
>>> if I had gotten it assigned post RIR. I don't know what those
>>> things might be, and I don't care if others don't get to do those things too."
>>
>> For what it's worth, in pursuing equalization I'd rather see the
>> contractees' rights liberalized than my own rights restricted.
>
> That’s already occurred several times, as the merging of the LRSA and RSA into a single agreement
> resulted in clearer and more liberal language that was sought by LRSA customers becoming standard
> for all customers.

This is true, but the most important changes still aren’t in line with the ARIN board’s unwillingness to provide any way out to a subscriber who no longer wishes to play, but still wants to keep their rights to the registration.

Owen

>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>