[arin-ppml] Additional modifications to Section 8.3 related to ASN's and legacy addresses

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:16 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 5/21/12 5:29 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> Needs assessments or services agreements with ARIN are not required
>> for legacy resource transfers.
>
>
> I cannot this support policy language as it differentiates legacy resources,
> as someone who works for a legacy resource holder I think this is a really
> bad idea, the LRSA provides sufficient protections for legacy resource
> holders.  Anyway, it is the resource holder and the resource assignment
> together that has the legacy classification, once that binding is broken the
> classification is broken.

They are different, that we are sure about. Don't the bankruptcy
issues surrounding legacy resources demonstrate that?


>
>
>> ARIN will provide a written and detailed notice that includes the
>> reasons why when refusing any number resource or ASN transfer.  This
>> notice will be provided to both parties to the transfer and to the
>> recipient RIR.
>
>
> I have legal concerns about the disclosure to third parties this requires
> ARIN to make.  If the legal concerns can be dealt with, then I think this is
> probably a good idea, but I think there is lawyer fodder in there.

We have a lack transparency with respect to legacy resources and ARIN.
I'm open to a "better" way, but expecting ARIN to justify it's actions
in writing seems completely reasonable to me. The recipient RIR as a
third party overseer seems reasonable as it allows them to monitor
compliance. Inter-RIR would seem to imply it's a two way street and
the other RIR will have costs. Seems like they should have an idea as
to why a transaction they are facilitating may have failed. I think
that the lawyers could call this problematic as easily as they could
make it workable.

>
> I cannot support this proposal as written.


So those were the only two issues that prevent you from supporting the proposal?