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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Tue May 10 12:51:49 EDT 2011

On May 10, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Part of my draft proposal includes a change to the RSA.
> What is the process by which changes are made to the RSA or LRSA?
> Is it allowable for a policy proposal to include proposed changes to either of these documents?

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.

> I would also like the documents to be closely aligned, and I think maybe there is some room, post-exhaust, to move them together by liberalizing the RSA to grant rights now only granted to LRSA signers.
> Like the protection from utilization reviews.

Independent of actual language, it would be good to get community
discussion of merits or concerns regarding such changes.

> 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 

> 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?


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list