<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Rudolph,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I considered restricting this proposal to legacy
transfers, and I think these are the most fraught with trouble for Whois due to
the uncertain legal rights that legacy holders have to transfer addresses
without notifying ARIN.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Right now it is not ARIN policy that the seller of
legacy addresses is required to sign an LRSA, but the purchaser must sign some
form of RSA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I decided to try to extend this policy to include
addresses currently under RSA in an attempt to bring RSA holder rights more in
alignment with those of legacy holders, by removing the utilization requirement
for addresses held under RSA for 12 months.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I just think that overall, it would make for a
better future if we can end the class schism between legacy and non-legacy
holders. It seems that ARIN's yearslong efforts to induce legacy holders to sign
an LRSA have borne little fruit, so I attempted to increase the inducement to
legacy buyers to sign an RSA, not an LRSA, when they make a purchase.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Since this would give legacy address buyers the
right to resell their addresses to anybody, and the right to purchase
needs-free, it was my intention that these buyers would see registration in
Whois as outweighing any negative effect of signing an RSA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But maybe I bit off too much, and I should have
limited my proposal to recognizing needs-free transfers of legacy holders
only.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But I suppose my answer to your question is if we
allow the legacy buyer to purchase needs-free, but require them to sign an RSA
which currently gives ARIN the right to revoke for underutilization, the
needs-free aspect is threatened by an immediate post-purchase revokation by
ARIN.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rudi.daniel@gmail.com href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">Rudolph
Daniel</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:24
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer
Policy Change</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV>Question: What would be the effect of removing the needs requirement for
the transfer of resources from a legacy holder; and any transfer
from the legacy holder signs an RSA as mandatory requirement and thus remove
LRSA. </DIV>
<DIV>rd</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>No, this is an incorrect understanding of the ruling. The
Plzak declaration is also<BR>not the final word on the subject. The
exclusive right to transfer means that nobody<BR>else has the right to
transfer them. It does not mean that they can be transfered<BR>regardless of
policy or that ARIN must recognize a transfer outside of policy in
the<BR>ARIN database.<BR><BR>Legacy addresses were issued to a particular
party for a particular purpose. Upon the end<BR>of that purpose or that
party, they should be returned and are no longer legacy addresses.<BR>In the
case of a transfer to a successor in interest through acquisition or merger,
in some<BR>cases, the legacy status has been preserved, but, this is rare.
In most cases, the receiving<BR>organization has been required to sign an
ARIN standard RSA.<BR><BR>It works this way... Legacy status is the
intersection of the holder and the resources which<BR>were registered
together by a registry preceding the RIR system. Once either of
those<BR>conditions ceases, the resources are no longer in legacy status (in
most cases).<BR><BR>ARIN has an obligation to continue providing services to
records with legacy status so long<BR>as that legacy status remains under
the original terms of issue.<BR><BR>ARIN has the right to reclaim addresses
from defunct legacy organizations.<BR><BR>> Given this, legal legacy
transfers can occur where the purchased amount may not meet ARIN's need
requirement.<BR><BR>Not true. At least not if they want to be recognized by
ARIN and have the transfer registered<BR>in whois.<BR><BR>> If the buyer
cannot meet the requirement, he will not register the addresses, although I
have argued he will likely want the addresses registered to reflect his
ownership of their rights.<BR><BR>The unregistered addresses become subject
to reclamation since they are no longer in<BR>use by the original
organization under the original terms of issue.<BR><BR>> But if there is
no needs requirement, the disincentive is removed, the registration takes
place, and the buyer signs an RSA.<BR><BR>Ah, so you are once again
confusing incentive with removal of disincentive. I can see how, to a
limited extent, this<BR>might provide less of a disincentive for the
recipient of a transfer from a legacy holder to register the transfer,
but,<BR>I don't see how this is anything other than redundant to your point
1.<BR><BR>> My proposal also reduces the disincentive to sign the RSA, as
it removes the utilization requirement and frees the buyer to resell the
addresses to anybody, with or without need. (Unless that buyer already has
transferred a /12 equivalent).<BR><BR>Yes, by neutering the RSA, you have
removed some disincentives to sign it. However, I don't see neutering the
RSA<BR>as a net positive in that regard. The community put section 12 into
policy for a reason.<BR><BR>> So I believe the net effect of the proposal
is to make the RSA more attractive, and reduce the disincentive for
registration of legacy transfers which do not meet the needs
test.<BR><BR>There is no such thing as a legacy transfer. There is a
transfer of resources from a legacy holder, but, absent an<BR>awkward
situation involving litigation these will almost always result in the space
being handled as non-legacy<BR>if the transfer is recognized by
ARIN.<BR><BR>><BR>> Remember, these are the intentions of the
proposal, although I know you disagree with my legal interpretation, and
thus the effect.<BR>><BR><BR>Yes... Your legal interpretation being
contrary to statements made by ARIN counsel and John Curran, I<BR>am
inclined to believe that it is not correct and therefore the effect of your
proposal differs from your<BR>claimed effects.<BR><BR>><BR>>> 3.
Provides for explicit protections against review audits for RSA holders
after one year, bringing RSA rights more in accord with LRSA
rights.<BR>><BR>>> Uh, yeah, I don't see that as a good thing.
Quite the opposite. However, I do agree that it is an intended<BR>>>
consequence of the proposal.<BR>><BR>>>> 4. Reduces transaction
costs for transferers<BR>><BR>>> I believe it will actually
increase them.<BR>><BR>> The intent of the proposal is that
transactional costs related to the needs analysis can be avoided. These may
be large or small. I suppose you mean the prices will be higher due to
speculation, though.<BR>><BR><BR>Yes, I believe that the net price of the
transaction will increase substantially. Further, the cost of<BR>needs
analysis is built into the ARIN transfer fee which I do not think will
change significantly<BR>as a result of this proposal. So, no price reduction
and likely price increase. Doesn't look like<BR>a savings to
me.<BR><BR>>>> 5. Reduces ARIN costs for needs
analyses<BR>><BR>>> Agreed, but, not necessarily something I see as
a beneficial aspect.<BR>><BR>><BR>>>> 6. Aligns ARIN policy
with most possible interpretations of the legal rights of legacy
holders<BR>><BR>>> No, aligns ARIN policy with one possible
interpretation of the legal rights of legacy holders.<BR>>> IMHO, not
even the most probable one.<BR>><BR>> See "exclusive right to
transfer" and the Plzak declaration that ARIN has no authority over legacy
addresses.<BR>> Would it be fair to say "Aligns ARIN policy with legal
interpretation most friendly to legacy holders?"<BR>> My point being this
alignment presents the lowest risk toARIN of being sued for tortious
interference in a contract.<BR>><BR><BR>You have already been told
multiple times that your interpretation of the words "exclusive right to
transfer"<BR>is not correct. The Plzack declaration was substantially
modified by later rulings in the Kremen case.<BR><BR>>>> 7. Imposes
a yearly limit on needs-free transactions intended to prevent
cornering.<BR>><BR>>> Yes, but, this limit is effectively a no-op
because anyone can create multiple entities needed<BR>>> to accomplish
enough /12 transfers to meet their desires.<BR>><BR>> I trust ARIN
staff to detect these with the same diligence applied to needs tests and
section 12 reviews.<BR>><BR><BR>It doesn't matter. If they are different
organizations, ARIN can't claim that they aren't different
organizations<BR>for policy purpose just because it's clear that they were
created for the purpose of doing an end-run on<BR>the policy. ARIN must
interpret the policy as written, even if that interpretation appears absurd,
as in<BR>the case of the single aggregate clause in the transfer
policy.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You are
receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription at:<BR>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<BR>Please
contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>