[ARIN-consult] FW: [arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation on Registration ServicesAgreement - MORE
mike at iptrading.com
Mon Aug 17 10:11:18 EDT 2015
Per my brief correspondence below, I think that the change of the RSA to have sections 7(b) and 7(c) continue to cover all resources instead of just Included Resources will give pause to any large holder who for any reason wants to sign an RSA on some of its space.
The language is overly broad, IMO, and goes beyond the scope of an agreement over the registration of a particular and defined subset of all resources.
Reasonable people can disagree over the property status of legacy space. If you want reasonable people to sign this RSA, take out these un-necessary extensions of the agreement.
Do they serve some legal purpose in the context of Included Resources?
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:47 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Subject: Re: [arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation on Registration ServicesAgreement - MORE
I was saying that section 7 of the new RSA requires legacy holders to
renounce not only property rights in the Included addresses, but all
addresses now and in the future.
Am I reading that right and is that what was intended? I thought the idea
was to allow the address holders to sign an RSA to cover only part of their
The existing language in both RSA and LRSA has terms which apply to number
resources in general. The revised RSA/LRSA (as per redline) are somewhat of
an improvement, in that they more tightly qualify 7(a) and 7(d) to refer specifically
to "Included Number Resources”…
If you believe that this should be done for 7(b) and 7(c), it would be best to make
comments to that effect on the arin-consult mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-consult