[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers

[John Curran]

On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Tom Vest wrote:

> Hi Dan, 
> 
> I have a more general question about the conceivable* effects of transfers on the relevance of conditions like the ones spelled out in 8.3.
> Is it the intent of the authors that conditions like these will remain in force in perpetuity -- i.e., that they will be "transitive," or continue to be binding in any/all subsequent transfer transactions on any/all parties involved in the transfer of the same resources, for as long as the relevant ARIN policies remain in force?
> 
> If so, are ARIN staff and counsel confident that the open-ended nature of such terms will not run afoul of various legal problems associated with "perpetuities"?
> 
> *IANAL, so maybe this concern is misplaced... in any case, it would be reassuring to hear that actual lawyer(s) regard this problem as "inconceivable" (or better still, why they think that it's a non-problem).

Tom - 
 
  We have not had policy language proposed that would create terms 
  and conditions that would survive in perpetuity, i.e. whereby 
  future requests will be processed other than according to the 
  policies in effect at that time.  If policy language is proposed 
  that creates a perpetual condition on the resources themselves, 
  then we will have a legal review performed on that language at 
  that time as part of the normal staff assessment process.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN