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

[Mike Burns]

> 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.

Thanks John, is there any expected timeframe for a revised LRSA?


> ...
> 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).


If the transfer would not have been "approved" by ARIN, wouldn't Microsoft 
still be using addresses allocated originally to Nortel's "predecessors in 
interest" ?
What we are dancing around is the definition of transfer.
If by transfer, you mean ARIN updating whois, then you can say that all 
transfers happen through policy.
If by transfer you mean that somebody else is actually using addresses which 
they have purchased from the original registrant, and ARIN has not updated 
whois, well those transfers have occurred, and if the costs of acquiring 
ARIN's approval are higher than the cost of ignoring ARIN,  whois will 
continue to degrade as these transactions continue.


> 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)

It makes no sense to have non-operative language cluttering up an agreement 
unless it serves some other purpose.
But I don't understand your parenthetical, is there a typo?


Regards,
Mike