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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> 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.
> 

They are not transferring within policy unless the recipient signs an RSA.

As to whether policy can say this or not, policy absolutely can say it and I'm
not entirely sure whether it should or not.

Whether or not a policy that says that can be made to have any actual impact
is another open question.

>>> 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".
> 

Perhaps if we strip 171 down to jus that provision, it might actually be palatable,
though I think that provision also needs some work.

Owen