[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation on Registration ServicesAgreement - MORE

[Mike Burns]

On Aug 17, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

 

Hello,

 

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.

 

Mike - 

 

   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

   resources”)

 

   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?

 

Thanks!

/John

 

 

The result of the changes is a Trojan Horse for any legacy holder, IMO.

The RSA comes in as if it were covering only specific access, and only upon deeper inspection does the signer realize he has given up all property rights, now and in the future, of all resources.

I ask again, what is the legal purpose for the generality of those clauses (7b and 7c) in the context of an agreement covering a specific an defined set of number resources?

And by context, I mean immediate literal context, where these clauses are bracketed by similar clauses which are not so general?

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20150817/0a0d23c7/attachment.html>