[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

David Huberman David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Thu Mar 20 17:07:40 EDT 2014

Hello McTim,

It is in both agreements: 
	Paragraph 6. of the RSA 
	Paragraph 7. of the LRSA.

As to your other comment, I think our policy is failing the Registry's users, not the other way around :)

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:00 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Owen DeLong; Heather Schiller; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

Hi David,

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> In contrast to my friend Owen, not only do I believe there is a very 
> serious issue, but I believe this proposal is necessary for ARIN to 
> have any hope of being relevant in the years to come. I don't mean to 
> use that kind of hyperbole, but the issue is very real from my viewpoint.  Allow me to explain.
> There are two different problems which this policy proposal solves.
> 1. Whois accuracy
> =============
> As an ARIN Hostmaster for 10 years, I saw a very high rate of 
> legitimate transfers which were abandoned by the requestor.  In turn, 
> Whois did not get updated, and in most cases, remains out of date today.
> Think about that for a moment please:  legitimate M&A activity 
> occurred, but Whois never got updated.  That's a failure of the system. Why does it fail?
> The common scenario is straight forward:
>         1. Company A buys company B.
>         2. Company A submits a transfer request to ARIN to have the IP address and AS number
>         registrations reflect that Company A is now the registrant.
>         3. ARIN starts asking questions about the utilization of the number resources.
>         4. Company A walks away from the transfer and never returns.
> Step 3 is the consistent problem.  In many cases, Company A never even 
> submits the transfer request because they are scared off by step 3.

Then this is our (ARIN Community) problem isn't it, not the policy itself!!


> Now to the second problem.
> 2. Conflict with the RSA:
> ==================
> John Curran can give a more accurate and nuanced history, but as best 
> I can recall, ARIN tried to bring more legacy registration holders 
> into the registry system by offering a Legacy Registration Services 
> Agreement.  One of the takeaways from that initial effort was that 
> legacy registration holders were unwilling to sign any agreement which technically allowed ARIN to de-register address space that they had without their consent.
> One of the concessions made over time was language in the RSA 
> documents which removed that concern; it prohibits ARIN from forcibly 
> taking away space when the signer is in compliance with the other terms and conditions of the contract.

is this in the LSRA only, or in all RSAs??


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list