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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/12, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm
>
> Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an
> "abnormal" situation.
> They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should.

It can't. The legalities around legacy holders are not resolved as you
saw demonstrated by some of the discussion here. I'm not entirely
certain who's in an abnormal position; legacy addresses are
transferring as assets. That is at least one state. Whether that's an
abnormal state remains to be seen.

>> concerned about that level of a change.  And that there is an
>> implication that this should happen within 3 month.
>
> I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time frame,
> for resources that are being utilized  by the organization that the legacy
> registry assigned resources to.
>
> However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned
> resources to be reclaimed by ARIN.


There is. Proposal 171 provides for a process to at least pro-actively
ascertain who the rightful holder of legacy addresses are in the event
of a question. "8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications".

The language is a bit raw, but you probably get the point as is.


Best,

-M<