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

Tom Vest tvest at eyeconomics.com
Tue Nov 22 22:42:44 EST 2011

On Nov 22, 2011, at 9:26 PM, John Curran wrote:

> 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

Hi John, 

Thanks for the reply.
If I understand correctly, that means that the continuing applicability of ARIN policy (or any RIR/needs et al. policy more generally) with respect to specific resources will be determined solely by the applicable terms, if any, of any pre-existing contractual arrangement (e.g., RSA, LRSA, PI holder, etc.) between ARIN (or other-RIR) and all subsequent re/transfer recipients... ?

If that's not too far off base, are we confident that any/all current transferor-side requirements and/or restrictions could not in themselves, be construed as "perpetuities"?

Thanks again, 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111122/c215c3f9/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list