[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-148 LRSA resources must not betransferred to LRSA
tedm at ipinc.net
Thu May 12 00:15:29 EDT 2011
In my opinion I see little value in publishing redacted RSAs
The most common reason cited for modifying RSA is court order or
Many governments have open records laws as do most universities and
these documents should be publicly available in enough cases to
satisfy the community's curiosity as to what is most commonly modified.
ARIN can easily select representative samples of modified RSA's that
they know are signed by public organizations under legal requirement
to disclose anyway, and ask the organization for permission to publish,
most of those requests would be granted automatically, enough so that
there would be a good selection for example purposes.
Of much more value, and something for John to put on his list of
things to place into the "merged RSA" would be language in the
RSA that REQUIRES that if the RSA is modified that ARIN has the
right to publish the organization name and modification they
required, unless the government is under a law that disallows
this, or a court orders it under NDA.
I understand the concern about a group like a state wanting to
reduce paper recording requirements, but frankly that is NOT
ARIN's problem, and if the state doesn't like it they need to
petition their legislature to quit mandating the practice. In
any case, giving ARIN the right to publish does not mean it will
I also feel that any NDA that ARIN signs for RSA modification
must also have a time limit in it. Whether it be 10, 20, 30 or
whatever number of years, it should eventually expire.
On 5/11/2011 6:28 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> +1 to the idea of publishing redacted RSAs.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> To: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-148 LRSA resources must not
> betransferred to LRSA
>> On May 11, 2011, at 5:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>>>>> This allows for John Curran's case where the RSA sees minor changes to
>>>>> accommodate government entities and the like.
>>>> If ARIN staff feels there are minor changes they should make to the
>>>> RSA, they should
>>>> make public record of those changes somewhere, and explain when they
>>>> are used,
>>> I agree. John -- how about publishing the one-off modified RSAs and
>>> LRSAs that have been used and explaining in each case what change was
>>> made and why it was deemed appropriate? Making non-substantive
>>> adjustments doesn't inherently strike me as unreasonable, but the
>>> interests of transparency would be well served by making those
>>> adjustments public knowledge.
>> Agreed. This should be possible without identifying the particular
>> recipient of the modification, so, I don't believe it would violate
>> any NDA to do so.
>> 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.
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML