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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 22, 2012, at 8:25 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> 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?
> 

I have no reason to believe that a bankruptcy court would treat non-legacy resources differently from legacy resources. If you have reason to believe that is the case, then, please provide something to back that up.

True, all of the bankruptcy related transfers I am aware of have been legacy resources, but, to the best of my knowledge, that is mostly coincidence and not a matter of law.

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.

Can you be more specific about what is not transparent that needs to be?

Owen