[arin-ppml] [arin-council] FW: lunch table topics

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Mar 23 02:18:50 EDT 2011 

On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> 
>>> Agreed.  I think that part is actually handled quite well by the
>>> current LRSA process.  I think the gap that has been identified is
>>> allowing a legacy holder to demonstrate that they're the legitimate
>>> holder of the space while they're doing negotiations with potential
>>> buyers.  If there was some sort of pre-qualification they could do
>>> that accomplishes the same verification required for an LRSA, but
>>> doesn't commit the legacy holder to signing the LRSA if the transfer
>>> doesn't go through, I think we'll be able to reduce the perceived risk
>>> among a certain percentage of the legacy holders, and thereby increase
>>> the available supply of legacy space on the legitimate transfer
>>> market.
>> 
>> I think that is best handled by having the transfer in escrow pending
>> LRSA completion which doesn't affect ARIN.
>> 
>> The escrow is a process between the legacy holder and the recipient.
>> 
>> I see no reason to have ARIN expend resources to the benefit of legacy
>> holders in this process without LRSA signature. If they want to avoid
>> the need for escrow, they can sign the LRSA.
> 
> If I'm looking for someone to acquire space from, and find a legacy
> holder, I'd rather tell them "please show me your LRSA or ARIN
> pre-qualification as the legitimate holder, and I'll show you my
> pre-qualification to receive space" before we get to the point of
> having our lawyers go over our agreement.  Waiting until closing time
> to discover that they really aren't authorized to transfer the space
> (or I'm not authorized to receive it) is a big waste of effort.  It
> reduces everyone's risk to get the verification done up front, if
> you're gonna have to do it anyway (for this transaction or another
> one).
> 
I completely agree. As such, legacy holders who have signed the LRSA
will be at an advantage in the market and probably be able to get higher
prices. I don't see a problem with that.

OTOH, if someone wants to sell their space, but, doesn't want to sign the
LRSA, then, they need to find a buyer that will work with them through
the process. Sure, this is slightly less convenient for the buyer if they can't
find an LRSA signatory. I don't see a problem with having this as a carrot
for legacy holders to sign the LRSA. I also don't see any reason to
eliminate that carrot from ARIN's toolbox.

> IMO if the upfront verification work justifies a $100 fee for the
> LRSA, then the prequalification should cost the same $100 to do the
> exact same verification work, and should be convertible into an LRSA
> with no additional fee.
> 
I don't disagree, but, I don't see any advantage to ARIN in doing the
pre-qualification without it resulting in an LRSA. I see advantage to
the legacy holder (who if they are unwilling to sign an LRSA, frankly,
I'm not particularly interested in providing an advantage to). I see a
small potential advantage to the transferee (though I think they can
mitigate this in other ways).

> Now I wish we'd moved this discussion to PPML...
> 
As you wish...

Owen

> -Scott
> 
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Depending on the definition of successful, I would accept that.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I'll point out that since they're signing the LRSA as one of the
>>>> last steps in getting their transfer processed, it shouldn't be possible
>>>> for their transfer to subsequently fail.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do you feel that contact should require of the legacy holder?  If
>>>>>>> it's just a "pay ARIN $X, provide documentation, and attest to its
>>>>>>> validity, in exchange for the ability to provide address space via
>>>>>>> transfer", then I completely agree that a contract is warranted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If they are transferring their complete legacy holdings, then, i would accept
>>>>>> that as the minimum.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If they are conducting a partial transfer, then, I think that the LRSA is about
>>>>>> as minimal as I am willing to go.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IMO the LRSA is an entirely appropriate contract for a legacy holder
>>>>>>> who wants to keep their space, but it's overkill for a holder who just
>>>>>>> wants to put some of that space up for transfer with as little fuss
>>>>>>> and risk as possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If they want to put SOME of that space up, then, they are also wanting
>>>>>> to keep their space, so, I think we just agreed, but, it's not clear that
>>>>>> is the case from the way you worded the last paragraph.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think it would be reasonable to have an LRSA that goes into effect
>>>>> for the remaining space upon successful completion of a transfer of
>>>>> some of their space...
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't actually favor making it easier for legacy holders to make space available
>>>>>>>> without a contractual relationship with ARIN about the space first. I'm not opposed
>>>>>>>> to a lighter weight contract for complete transfers, but, I think it is reasonable to
>>>>>>>> insist that anyone wanting to monetize a portion of their legacy space be required
>>>>>>>> to develop a contractual relationship with the RIR for all of their space in order to
>>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I see no reason to open up the benefits of new ARIN policy to legacy holders without
>>>>>>>> also requiring that they at least accept the encumbrance of a contractual relationship
>>>>>>>> with ARIN to go with it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think the potential risk to the organization from a legacy holder that does not have
>>>>>>>> a contractual relationship with ARIN engaging in transfers is unacceptable.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Something along the lines of "Avoiding unnecessary friction in the
>>>>>>>>> transfer market" maybe?  I think some discussion around ways to make
>>>>>>>>> it easier for legacy holders to make space available for transfer, and
>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that they're the legitimate address holder, without first
>>>>>>>>> agreeing to the conditions of an LRSA, would be helpful.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:52 PM, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the list of table topics below and submit any other topics that you wish to monitor or have discussed.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Heather, did you want to add a topic that captures PP 132 for discussion?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ++
>>>>>>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message
>>>>>>>>>> From: Einar Bohlin <einarb at arin.net>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:37:11 -0400
>>>>>>>>>> To: John Sweeting <john.sweeting at twcable.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: lunch table topics
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> These will be active proposals:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ARIN-prop-126 Compliance Requirement
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ARIN-prop-137 Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ARIN-prop-138 IPv6 Size Category Alignment
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Any other topics for lunch tables?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Einar Bohlin
>>>>>>>>>> Policy Analyst
>>>>>>>>>> Communications and Member Services, ARIN
>>>>>>>>>> einarb at arin.net +1 703 227-9867
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> ARIN-COUNCIL mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> ARIN-COUNCIL at arin.net
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-council
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> ARIN-COUNCIL mailing list
>>>>>>>>> ARIN-COUNCIL at arin.net
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-council
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list