<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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>
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>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
</body>
</html>