On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@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 <owen@delong.com> wrote:
ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started to get in to trouble.
To the best of my knowledge, ICANN membership is not open.
Not any more.
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.
Put your money where your mouth is Owen. As an ARIN Advisory Council member, ask ARIN Counsel Steve Ryan to issue a legal opinion that ARIN considers itself constrained to limit the requirements placed on LRSA signatories "primarily to the annual fee payment" regardless of how ARIN policy changes. Until reading such a clarification from someone actually qualified to make it, I have to expect that the contract means what it says when it says that only regular fees and use ratios are excluded from the scope of policy ARIN may apply to legacy registrants under an LRSA.
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:
More rational construction would lead one to believe that the stated intent is to limit ARIN's ability
The courts are full of people who thought a contract intended to mean something other than the actual text to which their signature was attached. Their rate of success is not great.
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.
ARIN doesn't seem to have any problem differentiating between ISP address holdings and end-user address holdings in the policies, and applying rather substantially different requirements to each. What exactly do you think would prevent policies from differentiating between those two classes and legacy address holdings under an LRSA? The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to behave that way. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004