[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

The Kremen case is very different from what we are talking about here.

In the Kremen case, Kremen already held legacy addresses, but, he was
attempting to transfer Cohen's non-legacy addresses.  He tried to  
claim that
because he held legacy addresses, he should be able to transfer Cohen's
non-legacy addresses without signing an RSA.

Of course that's bunk.  Even if you attempt to transfer legacy  
addresses,
you have to sign an RSA and the addresses are as part of the transfer
process brought under ARIN management.

Now, let's take a better look at the situation we are really discussing:

1.	Party Y receives addresses from the legitimate registry of the day
	prior to ARIN's existence.

2.	Party Y legitimately believes that those addresses were granted
	to him in perpetuity without fee so long as party Y chose to retain
	them with the following restrictions:

	A.	Non-transferrable except through substantial acquisition.
	B.	In the event of substantial acquisition, the transfer would
		have to be processed and approved by the current registry.

3.	Party Y's belief matches the policies and general attitudes of
	the registry at the time when the addresses were issued to
	party Y.

4.	ARIN comes along later and doesn't really like the way these
	grants were made.

5.	ARIN has no actual relationship with party Y.

6.	Party Y does not choose to establish a relationship with ARIN.

Please, now, explain to me why you think that ARIN has any right to
usurp Party Y's grant?

Owen