[arin-ppml] transfer conditions
lar at mwtcorp.net
Tue May 10 12:40:59 EDT 2011
Thank you, I agree. All or nothing usually gets you nothing.
If not at first at least at the point of litigation.
Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> 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).
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Mountain West Telephone
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387
More information about the ARIN-PPML