<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>...<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Because it is now clear that legacy holders can sell addresses without entering into a contract with ARIN, should the transfer policy be altered to reflect the fact that it is basically a voluntary decision of the buying parties to interface with the ARIN contractual regime?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I believe this event shows how short-sighted the community is being in deep-sixing Bensons's proposal(s). That would have started a process to deal with this situation more systematically.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>Hm.<br>What about adding a mandatory field to the Whois database output:<br>"Agreement:" which would list one of three possible values:<br>LRSA, RSA, or None.<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>Networks could then make decisions about whether or not they wished<br>to accept routes from that organization based on the nature of the relationship<br>between that organization and the RIR. A paranoid or fascist network might<br>opt to not accept routes from entities whose Agreement field was set to<br>anything other than "RSA". A slightly less paranoid network might allow<br>RSA or LRSA, but drop prefixes from entities with "None". Liberal network<br>policies would accept prefixes from anyone, regardless of their relationship<br>to the RIR.<br><br></div></blockquote>I actually don't think that treating LRSA and RSA covered networks differently</div><div>is particularly warranted.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I do support the idea of making the ARIN contract or lack thereof</div><div>visible in whois. I would accept LRSA/RSA/None, but, considering it more</div><div>thoroughly, I think perhaps "Contract: Yes/No" might be a better option.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Would that provide a means for the community to add some teeth into the<br>mix, to potentially ostracize networks that do not opt to adopt some level<br>of formal relationship with the RIR?<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>It would, indeed. I don't think that would be a bad thing.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>