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

[David Farmer]

On 6/15/12 07:40 CDT, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 6/15/2012 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled,
>> intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to
>> comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge
>> supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all
>> worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in
>> contravention of it's community developed policies.
>
> On 6/15/2012 9:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation
>> and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board
>> determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it
>> was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was
>> not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and
>> that only a standard RSA would be permitted.
>>
>> I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe
>> that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN
>> staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent
>> of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to
>> whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the
>> clear intent of the community during the development of said policy.
>
> So, Owen, which is it?
>
> Did it "work out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in
> contravention of its community developed policies" or was "the meaning
> of 8.3 emasculated by creative interpretation" and "the very clear
> intent of the community than an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative
> to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3" ?

We seem to what to place blame for something here. I blame us the 
community, we muddied the waters. We were trying to implement policy as 
part of contract language, "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed 
solely for lack of use".  This should just plain and simply the policy, 
not conditional on signing a contact, not implemented through contract 
language, but in the NRPM.

Staff and Counsel should have the operational flexibility to do what 
they need to do with contracts without creating implications for policy. 
If there were policy issues created, and I not saying there was, it is 
our fault not theirs.  I will agree there was the appearance of a 
problem created, but again this was created by improperly tying a policy 
issue into a contract clause.

This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy 
Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just 
become policy in the NRPM.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================