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)

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

Bill-

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.


A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound by all
current and future policies that come from the Policy Development Process.
The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff. So by
definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy on how
addresses were used.


> 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.

Which are the same terms everyone else with a post-ARIN allocation has to
follow. Reinforcing the 2 tier system that legacy holders don't have to
follow the same rules as the rest of us.


> I hope you understand why I would choose ambiguous rights over no rights
> at all.

To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a legacy
allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have the flexibility to do
things with this space that I wouldn't have if I had gotten it assigned
post RIR. I don't know what those things might be, and I don't care if
others don't get to do those things too."

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:53 AM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:16 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () 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://bill.herrin.us/resume/