Mailing List Archive

> 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
>
>
>