<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>"...usage of any resources maintained in the..."<br><br>By definition, abandoned IP resources aren't being "maintained" thus<br>they do not fall under this section of the NRPM. This section only<br>applies to resources that are being actively defended.<br><br></div></blockquote>That line states "...maintained in the [ARIN database]..." and was intended</div><div>to represent ANY resources under ARIN administrative jurisdiction whether</div><div>or not abandoned. It is not intended, nor do I believe staff has interpreted</div><div>it to mean abandoned resources cannot be audited or reclaimed under</div><div>section 12.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Clauses like this are very common in business contracts (decent<br>ones, anyway)<br><br><br>The section 3.6.1, implementation of which is in-process, is the<br>operative section that deals with the issue that George mentioned.<br><br>Technically, ARIN is within compliance of the NRPM at this time, since<br>Section 12 is optional, and Section 3.6.1 is pending implementation in<br>the NRPM.<br><br></div></blockquote>Both are tools. Section 3.6.1 provides for detection and identification</div><div>of abandoned resources. Section 12 provides for the reclamation of</div><div>underutilized resources regardless of the method used to identify or</div><div>detect them.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div>(This is just my own opinion, not an official statement from ARIN or</div><div>the AC).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>