[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-148 LRSA resources must not be transferred to LRSA

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/11/2011 11:43 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Opposed.
>
> Microsoft and ARIN must have had a good reason for having Microsoft sign
> a LRSA document for their recent transfer,

Just to clarify this proposal does not apply to the Nortel->Microsoft
purchase.  The numbers that were assigned to Nortel were not under
LRSA.  If they had been, the bankruptcy court would not have been able
to declare them property and attempt to sell them to settle debts, 
anymore than a bankruptcy court could declare your car property of
your friend on the day that he files for bankruptcy, just because you
parked it in his driveway.

> and there is no evidence that
> ARIN's operations are improved by tying ARIN's hands in this area.
>
> Also conflicts with my proposal 142 (Define RSA)
  and 143 (Clarify
> Specified Transfer RSA Requirement)
>

If you are in favor of my proposal you would definitely not
be in favor of either of your proposals, and vis-versa.

My approach is to do as much as possible to push whatever Legacy
numbers are out there into the main circus tent, that they all come
under RSA just as all IPv6 numbers are under a single RSA (with
specific modifications for governments, etc.)

Your approach is to allow a new circus tent to be constructed,
named LRSA and eventually all the Legacy numbers will be there
and the non legacy IPv4 numbers will be in the main RSA circus
tent.

So yes, I cannot see how the two proposals would be more incompatible. 
It will be interesting to see what approach the community prefers, eh?

Ted

> Matthew Kaufman
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.