[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResourceHolders

[Morizot Timothy S]

John Curran wrote:
>Just FYI - the ARIN Board of Trustees has consistently indicated that ARIN should
>provide the same basic services to legacy resource holders without charge, so that 
>they may make use of the number resources with minimal effort.   We do encourage 
>them to enter into an LRSA both to share in costs and receive clear contractual 
>rights, but there is no obligation for them to do in order to continue to receive
>registry systems (and this is similar to the RIPE 605 section re "No Relationship")

Yes, and I agree with and support that approach. We received registry services for years under that provision before signing an LRSA. That was mostly due to inattention and a lack of awareness. I'm not even sure when the LRSA option was developed. I absolutely support providing registry services to actual legacy resource holders whether or not they've signed a resource agreement.

My point was that someone receiving a new allocation now, even if it's a transfer from a legacy resource holder, is not a legacy resource holder. Only the original holder (or whatever entity the legal chain of acquisition and merger indicates is the descendant of that original holder in some cases) can be considered the legacy  holder. At least, I've always understood that the legacy definition is associated with the holder because they received the allocation prior to the formation of ARIN. Someone who obtains an allocation of number resources now, whether from the free pool or the transfer market, is not a legacy holder. I don't agree with providing free basic registry services to that group. I view their refusal to enter into an agreement with ARIN as a decision to utilize the numbers without registering them directly. They may have an agreement with the registered legacy holder that the legacy resource holder will not announce the numbers but that's a private two-party agreement and not an agreement with the registrar. And if they expect direct registry services or believe they need it, then caveat emptor would seem to apply.

Scott