DS writes:
Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the worthiness of an additional address space request. It doesn't look at nor care about non-existent assignments. DS writes:
Third parties can make reasonable arguments that they have standing to litigate these requirements on the grounds that the requirements were intended to benefit the public in general and hence they are intended beneficiaries.
ARIN plays, at most, an advisory role to upstream/downstreams vis-a-vis appropriate assignments. It does not get involved with legal disputes nor does it ever directly instruct businesses how to conduct their affairs Sure: organizations have successfully gotten more appropriate assignments from upstreams by thrusting ARIN policies in front of an obstinate upstream's face. Good. But those policies in no way preclude an upstream from taking away downstream assignments - especially in the case of this thread, where the customer/upstream relationship was terminated. Can we please stop this non-argument now? I agree with what you've said: ARIN policies are good for those trying to obtain appropriate assignments. But the more basic argument of "will I make an assignment to my downstream" or "will I allow this assignment to remain in effect" has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
Clarification: ARIN plays, at most, an advisory role during appropriate assignment *disputes*. That last word is very important :>
DS writes:
Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the worthiness of an additional address space request. It doesn't look at nor care about non-existent assignments.
DS writes:
Third parties can make reasonable arguments that they have standing to litigate these requirements on the grounds that the requirements were intended to benefit the public in general and hence they are intended beneficiaries.
ARIN plays, at most, an advisory role to upstream/downstreams vis-a-vis appropriate assignments. It does not get involved with legal disputes nor does it ever directly instruct businesses how to conduct their affairs
Sure: organizations have successfully gotten more appropriate assignments from upstreams by thrusting ARIN policies in front of an obstinate upstream's face. Good.
But those policies in no way preclude an upstream from taking away downstream assignments - especially in the case of this thread, where the customer/upstream relationship was terminated.
Can we please stop this non-argument now? I agree with what you've said: ARIN policies are good for those trying to obtain appropriate assignments. But the more basic argument of "will I make an assignment to my downstream" or "will I allow this assignment to remain in effect" has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
************************** David R Huberman 42737 Center Street South Riding VA 20152 Home: 703 327 1258 Mobile: 703 627 5800
On Thu, 9 May 2002 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
DS writes:
Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the worthiness of an additional address space request. It doesn't look at nor care about non-existent assignments.
It doesn't matter what ARIN looks at or cares about. As I said, the ARIN agreement is intended to benefit the public at large, not just ARIN and the entity that signs it.
Third parties can make reasonable arguments that they have standing to litigate these requirements on the grounds that the requirements were intended to benefit the public in general and hence they are intended beneficiaries.
ARIN plays, at most, an advisory role to upstream/downstreams vis-a-vis appropriate assignments. It does not get involved with legal disputes nor does it ever directly instruct businesses how to conduct their affairs
That is irrelevant. ARIN doesn't have to enforce its contracts. Any party to a contract or any intended beneficiary to a contract can enforce it. So if my upstream has a contract with ARIN, I can enforce that contract even if ARIN doesn't choose to.
Sure: organizations have successfully gotten more appropriate assignments from upstreams by thrusting ARIN policies in front of an obstinate upstream's face. Good.
But those policies in no way preclude an upstream from taking away downstream assignments - especially in the case of this thread, where the customer/upstream relationship was terminated.
Okay, let's see if we agree on the following things: 1) In general, your upstream obtains the IP addresses they reassign to you from ARIN. 2) To do this, your upstream signs a contract with ARIN that states, "Company [your upstream] agrees, as a condition to submitting this Agreement, to be bound by the terms of ARIN's Internet Protocol address space allocation and assignment guidelines...". 3) This contract is not intended only to benefit ARIN and the Company signing it. It is specifically intended to benefit the Internet-using public. So if my upstream violates its agreement with ARIN, I can litigate that violation even if ARIN chooses not to. DS
participants (2)
-
David R Huberman -
David Schwartz