[arin-ppml] LRSA requirement for resources being transferred (Was: ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 2/24/2011 5:13 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> 
>> 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
> 
> This is half the issue. The second is a perception that if one could transfer legacy non-LRSA resources to another party without that party having to sign the LRSA, those might in fact be slightly more valuable to said third party (and thus command a higher price).
> 
The recipient of legitimately transferred resources must sign the RSA, not the LRSA.

There is no ability to legitimately transfer resources without the recipient signing an RSA. This is true
even in the merger and acquisition policy.

Resources transferred outside of policy without the recipient signing an RSA can, and should, at least
in most cases, be de-registered and registered to other parties operating within the ARIN policy
framework. While I support the idea that ARIN should continue to provide services to legacy holders
on the original terms whether or not they sign an LRSA, as far as I know, those terms do not include
any transferability (other than M&A as covered in NRPM 8.2). As such, I do not believe that there
exists benefit to the community in ARIN extending the kindness they grant to legacy holders
to third-party recipients of space from legacy holders through an unauthorized transfer process.

> It isn't necessarily of benefit to ARIN to further this dichotomy, so this is a harder one to solve.. but the first one is probably more important (and easier) to solve if we want to.
> 
The fact that legacy holders received their addresses through an undocumented and informal
community process rather than under the contracted structure we have in place today is
an accident of history. It should not be extended to new recipients of addresses.

Legacy or not, ARIN registrations are not transferrable other than as expressed in NRPM 8.
This requires that the recipient sign an RSA.

There is no problem there. That is to the benefit of the community and is the correct
course for ARIN to take. Promulgating the contractless registrations to additional
third parties is unfair to existing resource holders under RSA and to the ARIN community.
Legacy holders are grandfathered under current operating practice. New parties
are not entitled to and should not receive such special dispensation.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110224/175d1b20/attachment.htm>