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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 15 11:04:20 EST 2011

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> I think you have it backwards, Bill. Commissions are orthogonal, the
>> LRSA is a roadblock.
> Martin -
> The LRSA may be a roadblock depending on your particular goal. From
> your prior message, you propose three major areas for change:

It's not my goal, it's a goal of the members/community to figure out a
better way. From the thread, and now a proposal discussion as well, we
have some consensus that what we have now is not optimal.

>  A. Need for a "mutual termination"/"walk away" option
>  B. Need to be obligated to comply only with WHOIS-related policies
>  B. Need for favorable fees and inclusion of ARIN membership
>  (My summary, apologizes if I missed anything major...)
> With respect to "B", are you proposing that the currently adopted
> transfer policies not apply to legacy holders who enter an LRSA,
> or only that the policy set (other than for WHOIS policies) not
> change for them once they have entered into agreement?

I didn't answer this question since I wanted to think about it. The
unfortunate answer here is that transfer policy already doesn't apply
to legacy holders from their perspective so hoping that they will sign
an agreement seems less than efficient. I don't think that they should
sign an agreement at all if we are able to get some benefits from it
hence I think that Benson's proposal is interesting and probably worth
further development.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list