[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation on Registration ServicesAgreement - MORE
jcurran at arin.net
Mon Aug 17 10:29:33 EDT 2015
On Aug 17, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
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.
To be clear, the language in 7(b) and 7(c) is existing language in the present RSA/LRSA
agreements, i.e. there is not a change proposed by ARIN to add anything to these sections.
Sections 7(a) and 7(d) have proposed changes (to make their scope more explicit to be
simply “Included Number Resources”) and, if I understand you correctly, you believe that
a similar change should be done to 7(b)/7(c)
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.
As noted, the proposed agreement includes changes to more specifically qualify two of
the four statements in section 7 to apply to the particular resources (“Included number
From your message, I would surmise that these changes to 7(a) and 7(d), in and of
themselves, are not sufficient in your view to address the issue?
President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-consult