<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 10-May-11 13:01, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0CFB85F12F10469BAC03B9B467579FC9@mike"
type="cite">OK, maybe it would be easier to modify section 12 than
the RSA, but both would probably have to be modified.
<br>
Any discussion about modifying 12 to remove utilization
requirements would probably inform the ARIN staff and counsel
about community support for revising agreements.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Considering that RSA 8 predates NRPM 12 by a decade or so, I'm not
sure about that.<br>
<br>
However, just modifying policy should be enough to get the effect
you're looking for. The very reason I proposed (the text that
became) NRPM 12 is that ARIN rejected my ACSP suggestion to enforce
RSA 8, based on a lack of activating policy. If NRPM 12 went away,
or were weakened in the way you propose, presumably they'd go back
to that position.<br>
<br>
Also, ARIN still hasn't implemented NRPM 12.2(c) as intended, so I
fail to see why you think this matter is so urgent.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0CFB85F12F10469BAC03B9B467579FC9@mike"
type="cite">... could my resources be reviewed and revoked per
NRPM section 12 without recourse to the RSA section 8?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
RSA 8 and NRPM 12 work together; neither has teeth without the
other.<br>
<br>
It has been argued (by me and others) that RSA 8 <i>could</i> be
used without NRPM 12, and therefore NRPM 12 only serves to <i>limit</i>
how RSA 8 can be used, but to date that hasn't been ARIN's
interpretation.<br>
<br>
It's been a while since I've read the LRSA, but AFAIK there is
nothing there for NRPM 12 to activate, and that absence is where the
special status comes from.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0CFB85F12F10469BAC03B9B467579FC9@mike"
type="cite">My reading of it says no, section 12 does not give
ARIN the right to request a return for under-utilization only.
<br>
I think this is the salient section, 12.4:
<br>
"Organizations found by ARIN to be materially out of compliance
with current ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return
resources as needed to bring them into (or reasonably close to)
compliance."
<br>
In my example, what current ARIN policy would I be materially out
of compliance with?
<br>
ARIN policy talks quite a bit about utilization, but always in the
context of a new allocation, not the utilization of a prior
allocation outside that context.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Resources are justified based on current and/or projected
utilization. If that utilization disappears or fails to
materialize, respectively, then the registrant is no longer
compliant.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">If I were allocated a /18 in 2002 order to
host websites, and I have sold or lost the customers but retain
the corporation, ...</blockquote>
<br>
You were allocated that /18 under a specific policy provision, which
requires certain current and projected utilization. If you no
longer meet those requirements, then your /18--or a portion of
it--can be revoked.<br>
<br>
If anyone doesn't think this is clear enough from the text, please
let me know how it could be improved and I'll submit a proposal to
clarify the intent.<br>
<br>
S<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
</pre>
</body>
</html>