The legacy blocks were created and in
existence before ARIN took responsibility of them and while ARIN
could simply take them all back, with no regard for history, it
smacks of "colonialism" to me. You know, where the enlightened
civilized folks take property from the savages because they can
put it to better use. Those savages aren't even paying tax (arin
fees) so really they should have no rights at all.
See? That's how history repeats itself.
-lee
On 2022-08-06 11:45, Ted Mittelstaedt
wrote:
That is
correct which is why John has repeatedly stated that action on
these needs to originate with the community. Essentially the RIR
system's legal support and basis for power is the same as the
United Nations various subcommittees such as WIPO - general
consensus among members.
ARIN is the only RIR that has legacy blocks so this is a unique
issue with just the ARIN RIR. Most of the rest of ARIN such as
NRPM is used as a pattern by the other RIRs.
It is likely that what the community does with regards to the
legacy blocks will have an effect on the "deceased company" issue
but the simple reality with registered blocks, which John has
tried to get people to understand, is that as long as an entity is
paying the renewal fees, while it might be apparent that the block
is "on autopilot" and is not in use/being sat on/etc. and that is
incredibly irritating, the existence of ongoing payments and
ongoing claims that the block is "in use" by the payor and the
existence of the original contract between the entity and the RIR,
all of that establishes a legal right to continue to have the
registration, by that entity.
If ARIN acts without consensus among the community, then it
jeopardizes the entire RIR system. We don't want the UN coming in
and taking it all over and the UN doesn't want to do that as long
as the RIR system appears to be functioning on consensus.
The gray line is what constitutes legitimate operations of the RIR
and where is the line between that and operations that cannot
happen without consensus to modify the NRPM. I have argued in the
past that ARIN has enough authority by the NRPM to houseclean -
John's statement a few days ago contradicts that - which means as
John said if we want ARIN to take a broom to the legacy blocks, we
have to give them more authority to do so by modifying the NRPM.
The actual truth is that if the community was united it could
revoke all legacy blocks tomorrow despite whatever legalities
people out there would argue. Ultimately it all comes down to
what the major ISP networks would accept, just because a RIR says
a block is assigned to someone else doesn't mean all the major
ISPs are required to adhere to that. In practice the major ISPs
do because they prefer this over the chaos that would result
otherwise, but ultimately all a legacy block is, is a checkoff in
a database in ARIN. Nobody HAS to actually follow it.
We could vote in power to ARIN to revoke and they could do it. It
would be a hellofa mess and absolutely the wrong thing to do - but
the community absolutely does have the power to do it.
Beyond that, absence of a proposal, it's all talk and no action.
So I guess if I want to see anything done I have to get cracking
on a proposal.
Ted
On 8/4/2022 7:42 PM, Paul E McNary wrote:
If I understood what John clarified for me
earlier in this thread ...
Many of the Legacy blocks will not be under NPRM and ARIN has to
tread very carefully on trying to claw these addresses back.
Many blocks that might be abandoned fall into legacy, especially
/24's, assigned pre-ARIN.
As always, many times I understand incorrectly.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]>
To: "John Curran" <[email protected]>
Cc: "arin-ppml" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:30:36 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN actions regarding address blocks
with no valid POCs (was: Re: Deceased Companies?)
Ted -
To my knowledge, the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM, i.e.
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/> ) does
not presently
provide for ARIN performing reclamation of address blocks
assigned to an
organization that has no valid POCs – it provides that such
organizations "will be unable to access further
functionalities within
ARIN Online” and cannot be receiving organization for a
reallocation or
detailed reassignment. (NRPM 3.6.5 and NRPM 3.7 respectively)
Technically an org like LT is obtaining a detailed reassignment
from
whatever ISP they are using (most likely, it's a /29) Of
course, they
probably don't even realize or remember that they have a prior
allocation which according to the NRPM needs valid POCs and also
needs
to meet utilization requirements before they were supposed to
get their /29
But, like I said, they aren't bad people, just likely ignorant
of what
they have. I suspect ARIN could take care of this by directly
contacting them based on 3.6.5 and 3.7. I also suspect that is
the case
for a lot of the abandoned stuff. I do agree it would take a
LOT of
manpower and lacking clear direction from the community to do it
is
probably a big sticking point for ARIN which is why you are
hinting a
policy change is needed.
If you’d like ARIN to take particular
action on address blocks with no
valid POCs, please propose policy specifying the actions for
community
consideration and potential adoption.
As you know, the main reason the POC validation was put into
NRPM was to
allow ARIN to require POC validity, so that it would discourage
spammers
and other criminals from trying to hide themselves behind fake
names if
they registered blocks, and it would make it possible to alert
block
holders who had bad citizens acting from IPs in their blocks.
It was the "license plate" argument, that is, just like a car
they are
using a public resource, so the public has a right to know who
they are,
which is why we slap license plates on cars. Even though that
really
pisses off some people.
But a secondary reason was to try to get a handle (no pun
intended) on
the extent of the "abandoned resources" problem. Along with
validation
came a requirement for ARIN to report. Well, it's certainly
been long
enough to get some valid data back - could you, John, say now,
based on
that data, what percentage of IPv4 number resources in ARIN are
like
this particular one - they have only invalid POCs and no valid
ones?
While those resources might not be available for use (as their
orgs
might be using them internally and just not kept up with the
reporting
requirements) if you could give us a percentage, if it's high
enough
it might stimulate the community to support additional
requirements for
having ARIN get a bit more activist on getting these resources
back.
I sort of liken this to the "abandoned car" issue in a major
city. If
the numbers of abandoned vehicles in a city are below .0001%
then the
population does nothing, but if it increases to .01% or .1% the
population goes ballistic and starts demanding the city start
towing,
because the public wants it's street parking space back.
So the question is, what are we leaving on the table? I think
that was
the thrust behind the very first query on this thread.
Frankly I DO think we should seriously consider revoking
registrations
of number blocks that lack valid POCs. In this day and age,
asking a
number block holder to supply a valid POC is the absolute LEAST
that the
community can ask. It's not enough to have just a valid street
address.
It is after all, year 2022. Having an email address is NOT a
barrier
to anyone. If they are a small org they can just duplicate most
of the
info in the main number block into a POC and add a phone number
and
email address. It's not a hardship. If they are large then a
street
address of some main corporate HQ is useless if anyone needs to
contact
an individual about something going on from their IP addresses.
Ted
You can find more information on
submission of policy proposals here -
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/>
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
|
