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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 15, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> 
> 
> On 6/15/12 15:23 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> But there's more to it.
>> 
>> The policy should also state that an 8.3 transfer of resources puts an end to their legacy status. Resources transferred under 8.3 must become non-legacy resources after the transfer.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I'm not wild about this, but not entirely opposed, either so long as the legacy status does not survive an 8.3 transfer.
>> 
>> Ideally, it should not survive an 8.2 transfer, either, but that might be a harder nut to crack.
> 
> Yes, I agree that there are several other things that need to be implemented at the same time.  And I agree that an 8.3 transfer terminates legacy status. There are several type sub types of transactions that occur under 8.2, some of  these I feel it would be unfair to terminate Legacy status for, others I would probably be OK with it terminating legacy status.  Unless we tweeze apart 8.2 into sub categories, I'd suggest we just allow M&As to keep legacy status, but how about we discuss that on one of the other threads.


I suppose that depends on how you perceive legacy status. I perceive it as a remaining artifact of an underdeveloped policy regime during an early period of experimentation with the internet. The fact that it exists at all is a combination of tradition and anachronism. Eventually, with the decay of the IPv4 internet, it will become irrelevant anyway, but in the meantime, I don't see anything unfair about resolving it when a change of ownership occurs.

Care to elaborate on what are these perceived subcategories of 8.2 transfers where you feel termination of legacy status would be unfair?

As to thread, we can discuss wherever you like. This is the one where you brought it up. Feel free to place your response in whatever thread you prefer.


Owen