[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 71, Issue 104

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Tue May 10 02:12:55 EDT 2011


My opinion is: Legacy holders can keep what they have until doomsday, and
where  these holders decide to transfer in any way method shape or form,
they are subject to RSA. I feel that it does not seem fair on the part of
the rest of the community that legacy holders legitimize (not sure that's
the correct word) their holding with the use of a special instrument (LRSA)
and at the same time retain the ability to profit from that which is
technically not property/....I suspect they were given these resources in
the spirit of R&D at the time.

rd


>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > RSA, I could support it. I do not support granting LRSA to transfer
> > recipients. The LRSA provides special benefits that are intended to
>
> I agree.    The  LRSA is an agreement between ARIN and a legacy resource
> holder.
> A transfer recipient is not a legacy resource holder;  a transfer
> recipient is a new
> resource holder.
>
> Also,  there is no reason ARIN should adopt a more lax policy in
> anticipation
> that a resource holder will ignore their obligations in attempting to make
> 'undocumented' transfers not allowed by policy.
>
> Legitimizing non-needs-based transfers would encourage them.
> It is questionable whether black market transfers would even be
> attempted, otherwise, by any legacy holders with significant number
> resources assigned to their network.
>
> > Owen
> --
> -JH
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 23:36:56 -0500
> From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com>
> To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] transfer conditions
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimdMWZFSCmUH6fWLgcKcsUJCrdoDA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> wrote:
> > On May 9, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > All of the versions of the LRSA, and all of the modifications of "The
> RSA" are "an RSA"
> >> I wouldn't like it, but obviously ARIN does not like forcing the
> recieving party to sign an RSA,
> > No, they're fine with "an RSA", just not "The RSA and Only The RSA"
> > Matthew Kaufman
>
> When I say and see "RSA" in the 8.3 transfer policy; I take that to mean
> the unmodified, standard RSA signed  for new allocations by ARIN.
> And "LRSA" to be the special modified RSA  for legacy holders.
>
> Do you suggest ARIN staff have taken a liberty to not implement it in
> that manner?
>
> I expect transfer recipients to be required to sign the RSA equivalent to
> the standard RSA signed by receivers of new allocations.
>
> That is, a RSA that does not provide the transfer recipient any benefits,
> more rights,  provide any fewer restrictions on the transfer recipient,
> than
> the new allocation RSA,  and does not restrict ARIN or cause ARIN to
> surrender
> any rights not surrendered when the allocation recipient enteres into
> a standard RSA.
>
> --
> -JH
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 21:39:30 -0700
> From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: Warren Johnson <warren at wholesaleinternet.net>, arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for
>        Transfers
> Message-ID: <A9D651E2-9377-434F-93D1-133E5F1CC5EE at matthew.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Actually, not so much... The resulting organization would still be
> subject
> > to a section 12 audit and appropriate reclamation of the unused space.
> >
>
> Given that no section 12 audit resulted in a significant return from the HP
> + DEC/Compaq merger, I will simply assume that you're just wrong about this.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 21:50:23 -0700
> From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] transfer conditions
> Message-ID: <1B32A1B5-0FFC-4C58-93F3-9C984E42F5AB at matthew.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> wrote:
> >> On May 9, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> All of the versions of the LRSA, and all of the modifications of "The
> RSA" are "an RSA"
> >>> I wouldn't like it, but obviously ARIN does not like forcing the
> recieving party to sign an RSA,
> >> No, they're fine with "an RSA", just not "The RSA and Only The RSA"
> >> Matthew Kaufman
> >
> > When I say and see "RSA" in the 8.3 transfer policy; I take that to mean
> > the unmodified, standard RSA signed  for new allocations by ARIN.
> > And "LRSA" to be the special modified RSA  for legacy holders.
>
> Well, since "RSA" is not currently defined in the NRPM anywhere, it could
> mean anything they want, I suppose.
>
> Note that even the "normal RSA" gets modified for certain entities, and the
> LRSA is also often "customized"
>
> >
> > Do you suggest ARIN staff have taken a liberty to not implement it in
> > that manner?
> >
>
> That is the only way that the public statements made regarding the
> Nortel/Microsoft transfer make any sense. There's evidence that "a LRSA" was
> signed and evidence that "policy 8.3 was followed".
>
> > I expect transfer recipients to be required to sign the RSA equivalent to
> > the standard RSA signed by receivers of new allocations.
> >
>
> Well, that isn't what has happened, at least once. I have a policy proposal
> that clarifies what might happen... please comment on it (I'm guessing you
> would NOT support it, given your position about which RSA should be
> required)
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 00:10:30 -0500
> From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com>
> To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] transfer conditions
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=6k_Xkoh-OqpR=jhiZ3hOz+qEqpw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> wrote:
> > On May 9, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> wrote:
>
> > Note that even the "normal RSA" gets modified for certain entities, and
> the LRSA is also often "customized"
> >
> In what way does the RSA get "modified" for certain entities?
> Do we have examples?
>
> I would suggest at least the requirement that the RSA used
> match a RSA published in the "Agreements" section of ARIN's website.
>
> Some organizations getting private RSAs of their choosing would be
> inconsistent
> with ARIN treating all organizations that receive service impartially.
>
> 'Special' organizations should not have have rights, waiver of
> community developed
> policies, or other privileges granted to them by ARIN, not afforded to
> others,
> just because they are X, and  "X is special".
>
> --
> -JH
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 71, Issue 104
> ******************************************
>



-- 

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
**1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110510/2dc09e84/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list