[arin-ppml] LRSA requirement for resources being transferred (Was: ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 20:13:21 EST 2011
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> And note, by the way, that I am currently OPPOSED to this policy proposal.
> But also believe we need a way to allow transfers to happen without risk to
> the seller in the case where the seller hasn't signed the LRSA.
> (Specifically, the case where one starts a transfer, signs the LRSA only
> because it is required for the transfer, and then the transfer fails to
> happen for external reasons... how can one un-sign the LRSA at that point?)
I think this may indeed be the crux of the issue at least in many cases.
I'm not sure it should even be necessary for a seller to have an LRSA to
release resources under NRPM 8.3: there's nothing in the text of 8.3 that
says they need to sign one: it just says " IPv4 number resources within the
ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in
whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
recipient." Reading over ARIN's transfer instructions at
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/transfers.html, I do see that "The
number resources being transferred must be covered under either a standard
ARIN RSA or a Legacy RSA" though.
I'm guessing that the only reason for getting the LRSA signed before
releasing the resource is to establish some sort of contractual
relationship: perhaps per your suggestion, we should have some additional
language at the top of such LRSAs that makes them take effect only
contingent upon successful transfer of the resource?
John, is there anything else we should know about why ARIN's transfer
procedures require an RSA covering number resources being transferred?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML