Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

Bill-

Thanks.

It sounds to me then that you don't really have much of an issue with the
RIR system generally then, but your concerns are more centered on one
specific RIR.


On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 3:21 PM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:59 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> > What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of
> the RIRs today could be structured?  The 'if I could greenfield this today'
> idea?
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> They'd look more or less like they do today. Rough spots aside, four
> of the five are working pretty well.
>
> Most of the changes I would make to the RIRs are small ones. For
> example, there are instances of product tying at ARIN which I think
> should be eliminated. The contract for RPKI service is tied to having
> a contract for address registration service. This is unnecessary and
> in my view, counterproductive. A consumer of ARIN RPKI service must be
> able to demonstrate lawful possession of the associated address block,
> but that shouldn't require holding an ARIN contract for registration
> of the same address block.
>
> There are larger changes I would consider, but nothing I would definitely
> do.
>
> Sometimes the right thing to do and the legally safe thing to do are
> not the same. The ARIN RPKI TAL should be available on an as-is basis.
> It's not. ARIN stopped demanding a signed contract, but they still
> assert that you're bound to a non-trivial contract as a consequence of
> using it. Counsel tells us offering it as-is creates a legal risk for
> the entire organization. Which impacts the registration services. The
> right answer might be forking off a separate corporate entity to
> implement RPKI so that they can do the right thing while only creating
> legal risk in their specific environment.
>
> For another example, there's a tension between the exigencies of
> operating a modern registry and the obligations to so-called legacy
> registrants taken on at the dawn of the commercial Internet. One
> possible relief would be to fork off a legacy registry and let it
> operate its own governance applicable only to those legacy
> registrations. Such a registry would inherently overlap the geography
> of the others.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill () herrin us
> https://bill.herrin.us/