[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers

[John Curran]

On May 10, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Since this point is germane to my proposal, could I ask for some status on the discussion that Bill Herrin and John Curran were having related to the potential for making some changes to the LRSA?

Currently in progress.  We're trying to make more plain english language for
the existing terms and conditions, and remove language which is conflicting
and/or inoperative.

> ...
> And now legacy holders see that a bankruptcy court gave Nortel the unrestricted right to transfer addresses originally allocated as legacy space to entities Nortel acquired in the 1990s.
> So addresses allocated to Company A passed into the "ownership" of Company B without recourse to any ARIN processes.

The above statement is factually incorrect.  The transfer occurred in 
accordance with the community developed policies.  If it hadn't been,
then the transfer would not have been approved, and the outcome of that
situation might have been more indicative (either way).

> I want all transfers recorded in whois, and I don't want to miss recording transactions due to requiring agreements that are onerous.
> 
> Still, as a legacy holder myself who has not signed the LRSA, I would be inclined to sign the stripped-down LRSA Mr. Herrin suggested, and I would be more likely to sign even an RSA upon adoption of  my proposed policy, since I would have new rights to resist a utilization review and would also have the ability to do needs-free transfers. These things would go a long way in overcoming existing disincentives to signing either agreement.

The utilization review is a good example: it is definitely non-operative
language due to other phrasing in the LRSA, so there is a great question
as to whether it is worth retaining in the LRSA (and to some extent, the
same question applies to the RSA as policies for transfers for unneeded
are now operative)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN