Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 08:16 , John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
>
> On 7 Apr 2022, at 1:58 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>> wrote:
> > …
> > Yes, but if you don’t have a contract with ARIN, ARIN’s ability to revoke your resources because the community 
> > decided it might be fun is significantly less certain for ARIN at best and highly unlikely at worst.
>
> Mr. Delong - 
>
> There’s some good news in this regard – ARIN can’t adopt number resource policy that allows revocation of number 
> resources "because the community decided it might be fun" – as the ARIN Bylaws require that "ARIN will continue to 
> utilize an open, transparent multi-stakeholder process for registry policy development.” and ARIN's adopted Policy 
> Develop Process requires that number resource policy enable "Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration” with 
> defined criteria that are "simple and obtainable.” 

While I’m amused by your pedantic interpretation of my statement, the reality is that resources with ARIN under 
contract can be revoked due to a change in policy that makes its way through that policy development process. Fair and 
impartial is a very subjective criteria and can be highly dependent on the perspective of the person determining 
whether or not something is fair and impartial.

While I agree that ARIN has not traditionally abused this ability, there is at least one RIR that is trying very hard 
to do so. As such, I have a greater tendency to view such things with more suspicion based on experience gained.

> More good news – anyone can participate in the ARIN Policy Development Process, so someone can, if they wish, easily 
> make sure that the policy applicable their number resources meets the above constraints and is not arbitrary or 
> capricious in any manner.   (The ARIN Board of Trustees is the one that makes sure that the ARIN Bylaws and ensure 
> the ARIN PDP are followed, so that again seems like a great reason to get involved in ARIN governance for those have 
> any concerns on that front.)

I’m sure you well know that I am very aware of the ability to participate in the ARIN PDP. I may not be the most active 
participant in the last 15 years of ARIN policy development, but I’d bet I’m certainly in the top 50 and almost 
certainly the to 15 by any measure you care to  use.

> As to the last point, ARIN’s ability to manage all of the number resources in all of the number registry is 
> remarkably clear, and ARIN number resource registry policies apply to all blocks in the ARIN registry (including 
> legacy number resources) – as it is ultimately the ARIN members’ registry database to be administered as they direct. 
>   If a legacy resource holder wants a statement of their rights to the number resources issued to them by ARIN or a 
> predecessor registry, they can enter an RSA that provides them the same rights as every other customer that’s been 
> issued number resources  – 
> (1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database;
>
> (2) The right to use the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; and
>
> (3) The right to transfer the registration of the Included Number Resources pursuant to the Policies.
The day the ARIN community decides to come with pitchforks for some large legacy holder without an LRSA will make for a 
very interesting court battle, to be certain. Until that happens and there’s an actual decision from a judge, I remain 
a bit less convinced of this than you appear to be. I do understand that is the party line. I suspect it’s mostly true, 
even. However, I suspect that it becomes a lot less true if the community’s definition of “fair and impartial” drifts 
away from that of a judge and/or jury.

You and I both recognize that the odds of the community taking such an action are relatively low. That the odds of the 
board ratifying it are even lower. Nonetheless, the possibility does exist within the terms of the contract and the 
recourse to the courts available to someone who signed such a contract are quite a bit less than what is available to 
someone who did not explicitly agree to allow this in writing.

> (The rights are obviously “limited rights” because there are other rights that the community has to those same 
> entries; 
> e.g. the ability to specify the fields/format of the number resource entry, ability to publish the public portion of 
> the entry, etc.) 
>
> I.e., your legacy number resources in the ARIN registry are already governed by ARIN policy, as ARIN’s maintains the 
> number resources in ARIN registry as the community directs regardless of whether you enter an RSA.  If a legacy 
> resource holder doesn't want an RSA then that is a perfectly fine choice, but I’d still suggest they participate in 
> the ARIN policy development process since it is quite applicable to their legacy number resources.

Nope. My legacy resources were (possibly) governed by ARIN policy. That is no longer true.

However, that’s also not really the point.

Certainly ARIN can do anything to its registry that is within policy. The question is what happens when someone who 
never signed a contract with ARIN continues to use those resources as internet numbers and announces the routes and 
other ISPs accept them despite ARIN claiming that they have issued them to a third party? Does ARIN have recourse to 
prevent these advertisements or the acceptance of them by other providers? Does the third party? Does the registry have 
any meaning if there is precedence for ignoring its entries in routing?

All of these are questions that no responsible person (including me) wants to see tested because the likely answers to 
such a test are very destructive to the internet at large. It’s relatively clear that someone who signed an agreement 
has documented their lack of rights in the numbers after the contract ends and thus it’s likely the courts would enjoin 
them from continuing to use the numbers in that manner. It’s less clear that such an action could be effectively 
applied to someone who never signed a contract regarding the numbers.

Owen