[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers
mike at nationwideinc.com
Tue May 10 14:01:45 EDT 2011
>Please propose changes to the RSA or LRSA via the ARIN ACSP
><https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html> as these
>are business practice documents and as such are outside the
>scope of the ARIN Policy Development Process.
>> To my mind, the difference between them would blur significantly, and I
>> believe more legacy holders would be inclined to sign either agreement if
>> these rights were ensured by policy.
>> And this would serve the purposes of all who look back on legacy
>> distributions with some regret over the lack of associated agreements,
>> and who hope for an inclusive policy which will bring legacy holders into
>> the >>fold.
>It's quite fine to create policy to cover the specific goals you
>have in mind. As a purely hypothetical example, you could propose
>"ARIN shall only reclaim or revoke resources for lack of payment of
>service fees, fraudulent use or representations to ARIN, or dissolution
>of the address holder, and specifically ARIN shall not reclaim number
>resource due to lack of utilization."
>If discussed, supported by the community, and adopted, ARIN staff
>and counsel would then revised the registration services agreements
OK, maybe it would be easier to modify section 12 than the RSA, but both
would probably have to be modified.
Any discussion about modifying 12 to remove utilization requirements would
probably inform the ARIN staff and counsel about community support for
> Finally, do you concur with my reading of NRPM which does not seem to have
> language in section 12 which clearly allows for a utilization-based
> resource review?
> My reading of it is that the reviewers look for policy compliance, but all
> the policy I read about utilization is in the context of an original or
> subsequent allocation.
> On the other hand, the RSA has clear language allowing review for
> compliance with the intended purpose of the addresses as expressed on the
> application for resources.
> I don't know if it is permissible to change the RSA via the normal policy
> development process, though.
>I'm not certain I understand your concern. Both the RSA and LRSA
>have a utilization review in their respective section 8, and the
>NRPM 12 provides for reviews at any time, including upon request
>of new resources.
>Can you elaborate some?
If I were allocated a /18 in 2002 order to host websites, and I have sold or
lost the customers but retain the corporation, could my resources be
reviewed and revoked per NRPM section 12 without recourse to the RSA section
My reading of it says no, section 12 does not give ARIN the right to request
a return for under-utilization only.
I think this is the salient section, 12.4:
"Organizations found by ARIN to be materially out of compliance with current
ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return resources as needed to
bring them into (or reasonably close to) compliance."
In my example, what current ARIN policy would I be materially out of
ARIN policy talks quite a bit about utilization, but always in the context
of a new allocation, not the utilization of a prior allocation outside that
Of course, the RSA section 8 would provide this authority as a result of its
"compliance with intended purposes" language.
My concern was that I thought section 12 was toothless in this regard, so I
left it unmodified in my proposal and instead modified the RSA, which I now
know is not possible via this policy proposal mechanism.
However, in order to have a viable proposal to eliminate needs requirements
for transfers, like APNIC, it is clear that whatever agreement is required
of transfer recipients must not have utilization review language in it, or
it would vitiate the whole idea of needs-free transfers, and the whole idea
of booking every transaction in whois to maintain its integrity.
If I make a proposal to change the RSA to remove the language about
"intended purposes" via the ARIN ACSP as you indicate, can I make my policy
proposal to change NRPM 8.3 linked, or contingent upon, action to change the
RSA? Are there any examples of prior policy proposals which required changes
to agreements that I can use as guidance?
More information about the ARIN-PPML