[arin-ppml] LRSA taking back addresses

[Stephen Sprunk]

Eric Westbrook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org 
> <mailto:stephen at sprunk.org>> wrote:
>
>     That is the situation today (a point I think the FAQ doesn't make
>     clear), but future policy may change.  For instance, next year, ARIN
>     could adopt a proposal to revoke all legacy space.  Signing an LRSA
>     before that happened would contractually prevent ARIN from
>     applying that
>     policy to you.
>
>
> IANAL (although I do often stay at Holiday Inn Express), but that's 
> not how I read it.
>
> LRSA signatories agree to be bound by all ARIN policy except where 
> specifically superceded by LRSA terms themselves.  I don't see such a 
> superceding clause excluding revocation by current or future policy.
> ...
> I've been suggesting that the LRSA explicitly do what it sounds like 
> you feel it already does, that is, assert that protection explicitly.
>
> If anyone can correct my understanding of the language in the LRSA, to 
> the effect that does indeed protect against this concern, I would be 
> thrilled to learn about it.

My understanding of LRSA §10(b) ("ARIN will take no action to reduce the 
services provided for Included Number Resources that are not currently 
being utilized by the Legacy Applicant.") covered that.  That is 
certainly the intent, though I agree it could be more clearly stated.

In theory, we could pass a policy that revokes all LRSA resources, which 
_would_ ironically be binding on those that are unutilized but not 
binding on those that are unutilized, but I don't see even a remote 
chance that would ever gain consensus.  Still, if you want that 
protection explicitly in the LRSA, or my understanding above more 
clearly stated, that's a matter for you to take up with ARIN's counsel 
as input for the next revision.

S