[arin-ppml] transfer conditions

Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
Tue May 10 02:07:28 EDT 2011

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 22:10, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> In what way does the RSA get "modified" for certain entities?

I believe it has been claimed that certain government agencies
have, with consultation with their and ARIN staff/consul, made
some changes that were required under their interpretations of
applicable laws and regulations.  I have no doubt that others
proposed, and some may have received, modifications.

>From my recollection of the RSA (and some conjecture), for
example, things like agreeing that a certain state legal
interpretation overrides federal law may be a bridge too far
for some feds and their purchasing officers.  But I have
no special knowledge to know whether that conjecture may
be true or not.

> Do we have examples?

I suspect that all examples are NDA (as any contracts probably
should be, unless the policies were to be amended to require full
disclosure, which probably would result in different challenges).

> I would suggest at least the requirement that the RSA used
> match a RSA published in the "Agreements" section of ARIN's website.

If that is what you want, then it should be explicitly proposed,
and if adopted, implemented as such.  When you provide ambiguity,
lawyers will find an answer to best meet their clients needs (which
may not always be what you intended).

> Some organizations getting private RSAs of their choosing would be inconsistent
> with ARIN treating all organizations that receive service impartially.

I believe that all organizations receive service impartially.  But
that that impartiality includes being able to negotiate.  A contract,
after all, is an agreement, and the process to agreement often
includes some negotiation.

I would suggest that we need to provide sufficient flexibility
to insure that the communities core objectives are met, and
be willing to deal with the realities that things are rarely
as ideal as we would like.  Of course, that means we
have to agree on the core objectives and what we are willing
to compromise on, rather than specific point issues.  My
personal core objectives would include need based
allocations/assignments over disagreements over which
state gets to have jurisdiction over the contract (for an
example).  I am also more interested that the receiving
organization sign *any* RSA which is no less than the
RSA that the numbers are currently available under
for a transfer than to have the transfer proceed without
any agreements with ARIN (in other words, legacy or
LRSA must result in LRSA *or* RSA).  Are these perhaps
ideal positions?  Absolutely not, but they are the compromises
*I* would be willing to make in order to move forward to achieve
*my* more basic objectives.

> '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".

Everyone is special.  Just like all the children in Lake
Wobegon are above average.  Telling someone they are
not special (and neither are their children) seems to never
be a popular statement (even when it is factually accurate).


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list