<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style=" font-size:10pt">I can't and won't try to speak for Randy. But, read the APNIC non-member agreement;</span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" color="#7f0000" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br> </span> </font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" color="#7f0000" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <a href="http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/non-membership-agreement.html">http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/non-membership-agreement.html</a></span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" color="#7f0000" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br> </span> </font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> There seems to be a lot less egregious legal language in it. I'm not sure that there is a significant difference in actual rights, but it sure seems nicer. I'm not sure if this is an artifact of the difference in US and Australian legal systems, difference in lawyers or what. But reading this agreement, I get a completely different feeling than reading the ARIN LRSA. </span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br></span></font></div></div></blockquote>Duly noted.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style=" font-size:10pt"> </span> </font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> Also note, it is mute on the Property issues, while I think this is a bogus issue personally, others do not think it is a bogus issue. (A side-note on why I think this is a bogus issue; I've spent much of the the last couple years working on getting Fiber IRUs for my institution, a very expensive long-term right-to-use. But not actually a property-right at least by most normal definitions. So, I'm comfortable with the idea of a right-to-use rather than a normal property right, others may not be as comfortable with the concept) One comment I will make, the LRSA is very clear and strong that there is not a property-right, but it does not seem equally clear and strong in defining what the actual right-to-use entails. </span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br></span></font></div></div></blockquote>Fiber IRUs are the right to use a tangible physical asset.</div><div><br></div><div>As I understand it (and this is my own understanding, not something I have</div><div>clarified with ARIN counsel, so, I could be wrong)...</div><div><br></div><div>In the case of ARIN (or any other RIR) registration services, that's not what</div><div>you are getting. You are getting a promise from the RIR that they (and the</div><div>other cooperating registries) will not give the same number to somebody</div><div>else so long as you live up to your side of the RSA. That's it. No rights</div><div>in the numbers are conveyed. You can put any integer you want into any</div><div>system you want at any time. Neither ARIN, nor anyone else has any</div><div>ability to restrict where you use the number 2, 5320, 123.45.67.8, or</div><div>any other integer of any length, nor do they have any right to restrict in</div><div>any way the number of places you use any given integer.</div><div><br></div><div>However, the internet depends on integers used for the purpose of</div><div>numbering globally reachable hosts being unique, so, ARIN and the</div><div>other RIRs provide a service of issuing numbers to cooperating</div><div>parties in a way that assures no other cooperating party is given the</div><div>same number. For the most part, ISPs choose to route a given number</div><div>only to the party that received that number from the appropriate RIR.</div><div>All of that, however, is the result of cooperation and is not a contractual</div><div>or legal right to use anything.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this clarifies the extent and depth to which numbers are not and</div><div>cannot be property and the exact nature of what you are or are not getting</div><div>with an RSA. The RSA is an agreement for REGISTRATION SERVICES</div><div>and is not a right to use.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style=" font-size:10pt"> </span> </font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> I think the LRSA is fundamentally the right idea. I'm not sure about the T&Cs, but I'm not going to do contract negotiation in a public forum, and especially not this forum as it is a policy forum. I am trying to work with ARIN counsel on a few issues, that is where contract negotiation should happen.</span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br></span></font></div></div></blockquote>Sure, although, appropriate feedback on policy-related issues in that</div><div>contract would be appreciated.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style=" font-size:10pt"> </span> </font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> Maybe one suggestion for the proposal, allow an alternate process to update Legacy records, that doesn't actually require the LRSA or RSA. It should be procedurally egregious, but yet plausible measures to prevent hijacking, like have to do a full vetting of proof of ownership each time and maybe a 30 day public notice or something. In other words, in the long run it is much easier to do the LRSA or RSA, but not an absolute requirement. </span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br></span></font></div></div></blockquote>Well... Personally, I'd favor an alternative method for updates that provided a</div><div>non-egregious plausible process for authentication and update. It should be</div><div>just thorough enough to provide adequate safeguard against hijacking and</div><div>no more egregious than that.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't believe that punitive approaches (deliberately making it harder to</div><div>not sign the (L)RSA are appropriate.</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style=" font-size:10pt"> </span> </font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> I'm not sure it would be good for the community for Legacy Resource Holders to not be able to legitimately update their records some how, if they can find their way to signing the LRSA. It might prevent hijacking, but it does nothing to promote accuracy in the database. </span></font> </div> <div align="left"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <span style=" font-size:10pt"> <br></span></font></div></div></blockquote>I think it would be very bad for the community if that became the case.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>