[arin-ppml] Use of the specified transfer policy (was: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers)

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:09 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty certain that the STLS will see light if any volume
>> and won't see any significant sized block pass through it as a result
>> of the current onerous policy considerations (L\RSA) in using it.
>
> Interesting perspective...  I can't tell if you are referring to the
> Specified Transfer policy in NRPM 8.3: if so, your conclusion is rather
> surprising.


Both. 8.3 requires the use of the STLS. They are effectively one.

> For a party (e.g. legacy holder) who plans to monetize their space in
> any case, there are two downsides to doing it via the Specified Transfer
> policy:

"STLS"

https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/


>
> 1) You have to enter into an LRSA, but from a practical matter it is
>   only going to be meaningful for the fairly short duration from when
>   you enter into it and until you transferred all your address holdings
> -and-

"LRSA"

https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html


> 2) You can only transfer what the recipient qualifies for, which is
>   limited to 12 months of their documented address need per the NRPM
>   in the ARIN region.
>

[ .. ]

> Because your address holdings actually get vetted when you entered the
> LRSA, the benefits to the recipient is that they know you actually have
> the ability to transfer per policy (and aren't just someone who hijacked
> the space by registering an expired domain name on a contact & emailing)

Members do not want those(Illegitimate) people to benefit. But there
are likely other more efficient ways to deal with this problem and
allow legitimate holders to conduct private transactions with limited
difficulty and _limited expense_.

> This certainty is key for most organizations that intend to build a
> long-term business based on use of the number resource.  Note also a
> (growing) recipient probably has many existing address blocks that are
> already under RSA, and the one received by transfer is no different.
> I'm looking for the onerous policy considerations regarding the need
> for L/RSA agreements, and for the vast majority of expected users of
> the policy, it's not clear that is any agreement-related downside.

Signing the LRSA is significantly risky IMHO. I found many
requirements that if I were holding legacy resources I would find non
conducive to a mutually beneficial relationship with the ARIN
community especially since there's no incentive to do so now:

- no mutual termination
- termination only for cause
- no membership benefits
- fees
- less rights that members e.g. audits, etc.
- Subject to current and future policies without recourse

Without carrot, we'll see limited use of the 8.3 required transfer
mechanisms. I would suggest the carrots would be:

-no fees
-mutual termination
-membership

> I agree that the policy isn't likely to be favored by speculators or
> address squatters, and that those segments may have been historically
> underrepresented in the policy development process.

This seems off. The rules for transfer were written outside of the
policy process. Based on the leasing thread it would seem that the
membership does want "softer" rules with respect to transfers and the
market in general. That in turn will invite those people to
participate and become legitimate actors to the benefit of the
community.

>Correcting that is left as an exercise for the community, if so desired.

Since the onerous part is not policy, how do we go about getting this changed?

Best Regards,

[and congratulations Green Bay fans! Steelers gave it to you. :) ]

-M<