All (and especially Mr. Curran), Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget?
Best regards, Jeff On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern. >> >> Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses >> (and how it collects that money and the privileges conferred on the >> folks from whom it's collected) are not a matter of public concern? >> >> I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started to get in to >> trouble. >> >> > As I said, they are a matter of member concern. To the best of my knowledge, > ICANN membership is not open. If you care about how ARIN spends its money, > become a member, speak up, and vote. Membership is open to all and voting > membership is open to all resource holders. > >>>> Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally >>>> consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses >>>> instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that >>>> balancing check to the contract, I think a steady creep in what ARIN >>>> requires of the signatory is inevitable... and the affirmative actions >>>> ARIN can require the registrant to perform in order to maintain the >>>> contract are nearly unlimited. >>>> >>> I believe the LRSA limits them primarily to the annual fee payment. >> >> Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not >> respect your belief. >> >> ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new >> ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action to reduce >> the services provided for Included Number Resources _that are not >> currently being utilized_ by the Legacy Applicant." (10.b) and "fee >> shall be $100 per year until the year 2013; no increase per year >> greater than $25." (6.b) >> >> Except for those exclusions, the LRSA includes "the Policies which are >> hereby incorporated by reference" (15.d). Those policies are "binding >> upon Legacy Applicant immediately after they are posted on the >> Website" (7). >> >> In other words, if the ARIN board adopts a policy that legacy >> registrants must install some of their addresses on a router on the >> moon (or perhaps some requirement that's a little less extreme) then >> failing to is cause for terminating the contract (14.b). Which revokes >> the IP addresses (14.e.i). >> > I think that is a rather bizarre and extreme construction of excerpts of the > contract language. More rational construction would lead one to believe > that the stated intent is to limit ARIN's ability to raise fees and prevent > the revocation of legacy addresses absent a failure to pay fees. > > The policies incorporated by reference are the same policies which affect > every other address holder, so ARIN would have a hard time requiring > legacy holders to address devices on the moon without requiring the > same thing from all other resource holders. > > Owen > > > -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ddosprotection to find out about news, promotions, and (gasp!) system outages which are updated in real time. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."