[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements

[Lindsey, Marc]

Owen,



Thanks for your (as always) prompt, and less critical-than-expected response.  It almost sounds like you could be in favor of the proposal with some further revision.  See some additional comments below.



. . . .

Owen wrote:

FIrst, ARIN has no authority or ability to compel exclusivity. All ARIN can provide is a guarantee that the numbers assigned/allocated are unique among cooperating parties. That is, no other RIR nor the IANA nor ARIN will assign/allocate conflicting numbers to another party.



<<< Marc Lindsey Reply >>> I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure.  Is there something in my proposal that suggests that I believe ARIN has the power to compel non-members to do or not do something?



. . . .



Owen wrote:

Creating a policy which is punitive to LRSA signatories is, IMHO, counterproductive. We want to create reasons for legacy registrants to sign LRSAs, not provide additional hurdles to that process.



<<< Marc Lindsey Reply >>>

I very much appreciate the implications of the LRSA. But I don't see how my proposal punishes organizations that have signed an LRSA - the LRSA's terms and conditions would be no more burdensome than they are today.  My proposal does acknowledge that legacy numbers under LRSA are essentially the same as regular numbers; and legacy numbers not under contract are different than regular numbers.



As I read your statement, I was struck by your premise that getting holders of legacy numbers to sign the LRSA and, as result, strip legacy numbers of their legacy status is an important policy goal. I don't think it should be.  And even if you or others think (as a matter of principle) eliminating the two classes of numbers is desirable, continuing to push, as an organization, for this ideal shouldn't be more important than the accuracy of the registration databases.



Owen wrote: Removal of needs basis from section 8.2 is also not desirable, IMHO.



<<< Marc Lindsey Reply >>> Why? Companies that merge, divest, acquire assets are making business decisions on how to respond to market factors in their industries.  Inserting ARIN's needs justification-based approval into these transactions is unnecessary.  But more pragmatically, applying needs justification to 8.2 transfers really only punishes those with regular numbers or numbers under LRSA.  My proposal attempts to provide holders of regular numbers with certain enhanced flexibility enjoyed by holders of legacy numbers not under LRSA.



Owen wrote: Proposed 8.2.2 should allow the fee to be removed by signing an RSA and not only the LRSA.



<<< Marc Lindsey Reply >>> Why?  To the extent there is a difference between the LRSA and RSA, why should a successor of a company with legacy resources be asked or even contemplate the RSA instead of the LRSA?



Owen wrote: Defining legacy numbers is in error. There are no such things as legacy numbers. There are legacy registrations, numbers which are subject to a legacy registration, and holders of legacy registrations (aka legacy registrants).



<<< Marc Lindsey Reply >>> The definition acknowledges the practical reality of the two classes of numbers.  Believing that legacy numbers don't exist is obviously your prerogative. But making policy decisions based on their non-existence (which is contrary to long-standing course of dealing) would be, in my opinion, a mistake.



Owen wrote: Registrations for which ARIN provides services without a contract are the legacy registrations of concern in the current policy debates and we should, IMHO, seek to minimize the extent to which such registrations are treated differently, not create additional policy to create additional differences in their treatment.



<<< Marc Lindsey Reply >>> I think you have just made my point.   By eliminating the needs justification when regular numbers are transferred under 8.2, the proposed policy would bring greater parity between the way legacy numbers and regular numbers are passed on from current listed registrants to their lawful successors and assigns.   The only distinction is the LRSA/RSA requirement.  And this distinction merely preserves the status quo, and eliminates a key barrier preventing many legacy holders from seeking to update the registry databases.

Marc Lindsey
Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
2001 L Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 857-2564
Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com<mailto:adelgado at lb3law.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120706/f470d7e8/attachment.htm>