[ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
William Herrin
arin-contact at dirtside.com
Sun Oct 14 12:30:46 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
- Next message: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 10/13/07, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote: > http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf. First, thanks to Ray and the rest. This is a big step in the right direction. I'd like to offer some thoughts and suggestions: Major suggestions: As others have mentioned, this contract is a little lopsided against the registrant. This can be directly cured in 14d and 14e. Consider the following replacements: (d) Termination by Legacy Applicant Through Return of Number Resources. Legacy Applicant shall have the right to terminate this agreement by submitting thirty (30) days prior written notice to ARIN of its intent to end the agreement. (e) Effect of Termination. If this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated: (i) ARIN may immediately cease providing services including but not limited to whois and reverse DNS delegation and will have no liability for doing so, (ii) Legacy Applicant must immediately pay ARIN any outstanding fees that Legacy Applicant owes, (iii) All involuntary revocation activity taken by ARIN against the registrant in the 90 days preceding termination shall be void, and (iv) All legal rights to use the number resources then remaining active under the Legacy Agreement shall return to the legacy registrant. Explanation: This would give the legacy registrant the final trump card, which is as it should be. If ARIN ever meaningfully oversteps its bounds, the Legacy Registrant reserves the right to walk away. ARIN would have no further legal or moral responsibilities due that registrant (no RDNS, no whois, nothing) but ARIN would also have no rights arising under this agreement to reclaim the number resources unless the agreement itself continues. Minor suggestions: Remove 15i. Its obviously false and might piss off the court in an action arising out of the contract. I understand the purpose; it attempts to get around a normal legal right associated with non-negotiated contracts. Don't do it; the courts have good reason to construe contracts against the drafter. Regards, Bill Herrin
- Previous message: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
- Next message: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list