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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 15:41 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> HI Owen,
> 
> Suppose I am a large company with legacy holdings and I want to buy a smaller company that has ip address holdings.
> In order for me to do an 8.2 transfer under policy, I would be required to sign an RSA.
> I would expect that RSA to cover only the transferred addresses and not subject the large company to a decision whether their legacy holdings are now voluntarily deemed devoid of any future property rights claim.

You can expect whatever you want.

IMHO, the community should expect you to recognize that all of the addresses you hold are, in fact, already devoid of any property rights claim and seeking to make sure everyone is clear on that fact is perfectly reasonable.

> Note this is a separate issue from justification, ARIN can still require efficient use of all holdings without requiring a revocation of property rights.

Yes… My argument here has nothing to do with justification or needs basis.

> Again the question is do we want to drive transfers underground through legally worthless RSA verbiage?

I’m disinclined to believe the underground boogeyman argument here any more than I believed it in the other places you have made it.

Owen