<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 2/24/2011 5:13 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:AANLkTi=t9_sw8SXCajP3pZ=FQkm9WooRT60sE+MPSApv@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Matthew
Kaufman <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at">matthew@matthew.at</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
And note, by the way, that I am currently OPPOSED to this
policy proposal.<br>
<br>
But also believe we need a way to allow transfers to happen
without risk to the seller in the case where the seller hasn't
signed the LRSA. (Specifically, the case where one starts a
transfer, signs the LRSA only because it is required for the
transfer, and then the transfer fails to happen for external
reasons... how can one un-sign the LRSA at that point?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I think this may indeed be the crux of the issue at least
in many cases<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is half the issue. The second is a perception that if one could
transfer legacy non-LRSA resources to another party without that
party having to sign the LRSA, those might in fact be slightly more
valuable to said third party (and thus command a higher price).<br>
<br></div></blockquote>The recipient of legitimately transferred resources must sign the RSA, not the LRSA.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no ability to legitimately transfer resources without the recipient signing an RSA. This is true</div><div>even in the merger and acquisition policy.</div><div><br></div><div>Resources transferred outside of policy without the recipient signing an RSA can, and should, at least</div><div>in most cases, be de-registered and registered to other parties operating within the ARIN policy</div><div>framework. While I support the idea that ARIN should continue to provide services to legacy holders</div><div>on the original terms whether or not they sign an LRSA, as far as I know, those terms do not include</div><div>any transferability (other than M&A as covered in NRPM 8.2). As such, I do not believe that there</div><div>exists benefit to the community in ARIN extending the kindness they grant to legacy holders</div><div>to third-party recipients of space from legacy holders through an unauthorized transfer process.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
It isn't necessarily of benefit to ARIN to further this dichotomy,
so this is a harder one to solve.. but the first one is probably
more important (and easier) to solve if we want to.<br>
<br></div></blockquote>The fact that legacy holders received their addresses through an undocumented and informal</div><div>community process rather than under the contracted structure we have in place today is</div><div>an accident of history. It should not be extended to new recipients of addresses.</div><div><br></div><div>Legacy or not, ARIN registrations are not transferrable other than as expressed in NRPM 8.</div><div>This requires that the recipient sign an RSA.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no problem there. That is to the benefit of the community and is the correct</div><div>course for ARIN to take. Promulgating the contractless registrations to additional</div><div>third parties is unfair to existing resource holders under RSA and to the ARIN community.</div><div>Legacy holders are grandfathered under current operating practice. New parties</div><div>are not entitled to and should not receive such special dispensation.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>