[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

[admin at directcolocation.com]

I for one like seeing input like this on here as it give anyone that may
have an interest in seeing a different point of view that may not be seen
if submitted thru the suggestion process, as I have a ton of work to keep
up with already trying to keep up with all of this and considering that
fact that Marc has a background in the legal area it may give all of us
insight as to other ways to get things done in a more expeditious way.

This is of course considering the fact the community would like to avoid
any possible legal issues that could arise from any omission of
possibilities that may exist in which a Legacy holder may have performed
some sort of transaction prior to all the language that is trying to be
placed upon the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign)
after the fact.

If we allow this to be done then the potential for expensive legal battles
may ensue in the future in which the original legacy holder (or its legal
successor or assign) would do if placed in a situation that may harm there
Legacy IPV4 future status or rights, considering that as we know it, to
date IPV6 is not the end all solution to the IPV4 depletion issue at this
time, and if it was, then I am sure none of these type messages would even
be a topic of the community.

So I personally am applauding Marc's efforts here and do think it is
important to make sure the attempt to get it right as I am not an attorney
and do not want to try to be one, so thank you Marc for your input and
trying to help in anyway you can from the knowledge you offer the
community on this input.

Donald Mahoney
Network Engineer
Direct Colocation


On 6/5/12 8:27 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote:
(2)	the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) has not
expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address or Autonomous
System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement with an RIR or the
written consent of the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or
assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment of
the IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number to another entity or
individual in accordance with the RIR's number resource policies and
membership (or service) agreements.

Marc -
  Please do not attempt to establish conditions retroactively
  regarding what should be considered acceptable mechanisms
  for consent for return of number resources.

  If you have certain beliefs regarding how legacy number blocks
  should be returned going forward, feel free to submit specific
  advice into the ARIN suggestion process on that topic.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.