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...@nanog.org> On Behalf Of 
William Herrin
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc>
Cc: John Curran <jcur...@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 <beec...@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.

Reply via email to