Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 18:54 , John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > ...
> > The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the 
> > controlling organization of the resource. The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct for ARIN 
> > to do so.
> >
> > IMHO, it was not. IMHO, ARIN should have recognized that this particular block was issued for a purpose and not to 
> > an organization or individual.
>
> Owen - 
>
> All IP address blocks were issued for some purpose, and this includes quite a variety of early networks that were 
> issued for various research purposes.  There are also blocks that were issued (or made available via community 
> process) for special purposes; as noted, you can find that registry here - 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml

All address blocks were issued for some purpose, but most were issued TO individuals or organizations FOR that purpose.

In the case of 44.0.0.0/8, it was arguably issued TO the purpose as well as FOR the purpose and the “Reference” contact 
was just the person currently serving as POC for the address space, not an “owner” of the registration record.

> > That contacts were volunteers from the community that agreed to take on a task. Even if the block ended up 
> > contactless, it should not have been open to claim and certainly not to 8.3 or 8.4 partial transfer to another 
> > organization away from that purpose.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the incremental way in which this was done probably rendered ARIN staff into a situation similar to 
> > the proverbial (and apocryphal) frog in a pot of water.
>
> Not at all. 

Oh? Do tell…

> > At each step, it probably seemed on the edge, but still appropriate. This was, of course exacerbated by the fact 
> > that the community didn’t really notice anything amiss until this last step, because the individuals in question 
> > were, by and large, trusted members of the community that appeared to be continuing to act in the community’s 
> > interest.
>
> Actually, the change in 2011 to ARDC was perfectly appropriate then, and would be approved if received today – 

No doubt… 

>       AMPRnet was assigned for Amateur Packet Radio Experimentation (a /8 research assignment) with Hank Magnuski (or 
> his designated successor) to determine how that was to be accomplished.   It is presently registered to ARDC, a 
> public benefit not-for-profit whose purposes are “to support, promote, and enhance digital communication and broader 
> communication science and technology, to promote Amateur Radio, scientific research, experimentation, education, 
> development, open access, and innovation in information and communication technology”, and this change was made by a 
> designated successor (Brian Kantor.)  

I’m aware.

> You might not like ARDC’s administration due to their apparent lack of engagement with the community, but it remains 
> quite clear that any of the contacts in the lineage of the block could have requested the same update.
> The change was compliant with the purpose of original issuance, and has been allowed for other projects/activities 
> which similarly formalized their structure over time. 

I admit there’s a valid case for this particular change. This particular change is the cold water stage of the above 
analogy.

> > Honestly, I doubt most of the community was aware of (I certainly wasn’t) the incorporation of ARDC and the 
> > subsequent transfer of control of 44.0.0.0/8 to ARDC — The Enterprise vs. ARDC — The purpose. Had I been aware of 
> > that move at the time, I certainly would have scrutinized the governance process for ARDC and likely cried foul on 
> > that basis. That’s where I believe ARIN erred most grievously in this process and that’s where I believe these 
> > resources were hijacked to the detriment of the amateur radio community.
>
> The resources were registered to a not-for-profit entity of similar purpose per the direction of the authorized 
> contact.  In addition to the current contact, the organization’s board also contains those who were the authorized 
> contact for the number block in the past and have contributed heavily to the amateur radio community.   If the same 
> request to update the registration were to arrive today, it would be approved, as to do otherwise would require that 
> ARIN unilaterally impose policy constraints on an address block that are neither documented nor are the output of any 
> community process for the definition of a special assignment at the IETF. 
>
> As for whether the recent transfer of a /10 portion was “to the detriment of the amateur radio community”, that is 
> likely a topic that the amateur radio community should discuss with ARDC, and (as noted earlier) may not be 
> particularly relevant to this mailing list or its subscribers. 

There seem to be a good many participants besides just myself who consider it relevant.

Owen