[arin-ppml] Transfer Proposals

mack mack at exchange.alphared.com
Tue Sep 30 02:15:33 EDT 2008

Wow, I did a closer read and you are correct.
There is nothing in either the policy manual or
the RSA that requires the return of unused resources
if they are justified and later not needed.

I am guessing the belief was that you will need them
sooner or later.

Section 8 implies you must use them for the purposes
outlined in your application but doesn't call for
revocation unless they are being used for purposes
other than what was intended, policy violations or
violations of the RSA.  It doesn't say anything about
unused resources.

LR Mack McBride
Network Administrator
Alpha Red, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:34 AM
> To: mack; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Transfer Proposals
> mack wrote:
> > This is my $.02
> >
> > The current proposals are flawed.
> > For most of us being able to execute a transfer is a breach of our
> current contract with ARIN.
> > The RSA most of us have signed says we have to return unused space if
> we no longer need it.
> > The only people who haven't signed such an RSA are the legacy
> holders.
> >
> I don't see where the RSA says that; §8 does say that the holder must
> comply with policies, but policy only says that the resources must be
> "justified", not "needed".  If an org decides to free up some of its
> resources by becoming more efficient than policy requires (e.g.
> deploying NAT), there is also no policy that enables ARIN to take those
> addresses away -- and if there were, what motivation would folks have
> to
> incur those costs?  Part of the paid transfer idea is to financially
> motivate orgs to give unnecessary (but justified or legacy) resources
> to
> someone else who does actually need them.
> S

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list