<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 21, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Mike Burns wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Hi Owen,</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Forgive the topposting,but we are on the merry-go-round again.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Indeed.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">I am basing my interpretation of the law on the words of the head of ARIN, which you seem to dismiss, even though he made those statements under oath to a judge.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>You are basing your interpretation on a subset of the words of the head of ARIN and ignoring details of the</div><div>subsequent rulings where the judge dictated that Kremen was not exempt from the requirement to sign an RSA</div><div>and was not exempt from the ARIN process. I believe that Mr. Plzak (who I will note subsequently stepped</div><div>down as CEO) erred in his statements in that case and that error was subsequently corrected.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial">And on my reading of the MS/Nortel deal, in which I see an exclusive right to transfer, which plainly means ARIN cannot affect that transfer right.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>No, that is not what it means. It means that no one else has the right to enact the transfer, but, it does not mean</div><div>that the transfer cannot be subject to ARIN policy, as, indeed, if you examine the ruling it was, in fact, contingent</div><div>on M$ signing an LRSA and certain other conditions related to ARIN policy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Your interpretation has become hoary with age, it was the same thing you were writing years ago.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>It was right then and it is right now. I don't see how consistency in this belief is a bad thing.</div><div>Though I do appreciate the introduction of a new word to my vocabulary, I actually had to</div><div>look up hoary. I think that I am more likely to be considered hoary (and I don't think I</div><div>am particularly aged at a mere 44 years old) than my views here.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">You continue to believe that ARIN will charge into the fray on its white horse and reclaim these legacy addresses.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>I continue to believe that ARIN will work diligently to carry out the policies set by the community.</div><div>The CEO has said as much.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe that the NRPM makes it clear that other than as permitted in section 8, ARIN considers</div><div>IP number resources non-transferrable. As such, I expect transfers not registered with ARIN</div><div>to become the subject of NRPM 12 audits which will result in one of several possible outcomes:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>+<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ARIN works with the recipient and/or the originator to complete and register the transfer</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>under NRPM 8.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>+<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ARIN works with the recipient and the originator to update the POCs and get the</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>addresses restored to the original registrant.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>+<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ARIN reclaims the addresses which were held by an earlier and now defunct</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>organization to the detriment of the recipient who is under the misapprehension</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>that the addresses were transferred to them outside of policy.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Why?</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Because it has happened in the past and is consistent with ARIN policy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial">When have they ever done this?</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>I am not privvy to specific examples, but, there is quite a bit of space listed in the revoked</div><div>and reclaimed pools by ARIN staff in their statistics which would indicate that it has, indeed,</div><div>happened.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial">I wouldn't be relying on section 12, it is poorly written and does not give ARIN the right to review and revoke for utilization, and ARIN policies do not apply to legacy holders who got their addresses before ARIN came into existence.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><font size="2" face="Arial">The real power lies in section</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>NRPM 12 does not extend or contract ARIN policy. It places limits on ARIN's ability to conduct</div><div>audits too frequently, and, provides a framework under which those audits can be conducted</div><div>by staff. Some LRSA signatories are exempt from usage-based review. Other than that, I don't</div><div>see how you can claim NRPM 12 prevents ARIN from reviewing and reclaiming for utilization.</div><div><br></div><div>I have repeatedly agreed with you that ARIN policies likely cannot be enforced against the original</div><div>legacy registrant who got their addresses before ARIN came into existence. Even if they could</div><div>(and I am not sure that they cannot), I would not advocate such. That has never been my claim</div><div>and is a misrepresentation of what I have said.</div><div><br></div><div>What I have said, consistently, is that someone other than the original registrant who believes</div><div>that they are able to receive a transfer of legacy resources without working through NRPM 8</div><div>to effect the transfer is mistaken. Even in the early days, addresses were issued to a specific</div><div>organization for a specific purpose and were not transferable except by acquisition and/or</div><div>merger which also involved the transfer of the underlying network infrastructure.</div><div><br></div><div>ARIN, as the successor in interest for the registry function provided by those earlier registries</div><div>does maintain the ability to enforce those terms and administer the address space</div><div>accordingly.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"> 8 of the RSA, which legacy holders for the most part have not signed, and thus ARIN has no legal rights.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Sure, they control Whois registration, and that is what I have heard John Curran say.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">And sure, if you define a transfer as a WHois update, then ARIN controls transfers.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>There are three things that ARIN controls which can have an impact here:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Whois</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>rDNS</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The ability to issue the numbers to another party and register them</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>in (1) and (2) above.</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">But ARIN cannot legally stop a sale of legacy addresses to another party, if you believe that, then just keep watching as that continues to never happen, and as these legal transactions continue to the detriment of WHois.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>True, but, they are not required to recognize that sale and there is no legal</div><div>basis for preventing ARIN from removing the registration for the legacy</div><div>holder once that legacy holder is defunct or no longer using the addresses</div><div>in accordance with their original terms of issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Once that happens, ARIN is free to issue those addresses to another party</div><div>and register them accordingly in whois and rDNS, leaving the third party</div><div>who thinks they bought the addresses in a rather tenuous position at best.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Neither you nor I am a lawyer, so it is fair to discount our interpretations, but in the article I mentioned, a real lawyer was quoted as agreeing with my interpretation.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Do you have any lawyer who holds with your interpretation?</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>I believe so, but, I will leave it to him if he wants to speak up on the matter.</div><div>I know he reads PPML.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> </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><div><font size="2" face="Arial">PS THanks for the info on the prior discussion, I will snoop around the archives for 2008 to see if anything there is enlightening.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; "><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; ">----- Original Message -----</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="owen@delong.com" href="mailto:owen@delong.com">Owen DeLong</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="mike@nationwideinc.com" href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">Mike Burns</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="tvest@eyeconomics.com" href="mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com">Tom Vest</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="cengel@conxeo.com" href="mailto:cengel@conxeo.com">Chris Engel</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="arin-ppml@arin.net" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><strong></strong><br> </div><div>No, this is an incorrect understanding of the ruling. The Plzak declaration is also</div><div>not the final word on the subject. The exclusive right to transfer means that nobody</div><div>else has the right to transfer them. It does not mean that they can be transfered</div><div>regardless of policy or that ARIN must recognize a transfer outside of policy in the</div><div>ARIN database.</div><div> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div>Legacy addresses were issued to a particular party for a particular purpose. Upon the end</div><div>of that purpose or that party, they should be returned and are no longer legacy addresses.</div><div>In the case of a transfer to a successor in interest through acquisition or merger, in some</div><div>cases, the legacy status has been preserved, but, this is rare. In most cases, the receiving</div><div>organization has been required to sign an ARIN standard RSA.</div><div><br></div><div>It works this way... Legacy status is the intersection of the holder and the resources which</div><div>were registered together by a registry preceding the RIR system. Once either of those</div><div>conditions ceases, the resources are no longer in legacy status (in most cases).</div><div><br></div><div>ARIN has an obligation to continue providing services to records with legacy status so long</div><div>as that legacy status remains under the original terms of issue.</div><div><br></div><div>ARIN has the right to reclaim addresses from defunct legacy organizations.</div><div> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Given this, legal legacy transfers can occur where the purchased amount may not meet ARIN's need requirement.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Not true. At least not if they want to be recognized by ARIN and have the transfer registered</div><div>in whois.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>The unregistered addresses become subject to reclamation since they are no longer in</div><div>use by the original organization under the original terms of issue.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>But if there is no needs requirement, the disincentive is removed, the registration takes place, and the buyer signs an RSA.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Ah, so you are once again confusing incentive with removal of disincentive. I can see how, to a limited extent, this</div><div>might provide less of a disincentive for the recipient of a transfer from a legacy holder to register the transfer, but,</div><div>I don't see how this is anything other than redundant to your point 1.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, by neutering the RSA, you have removed some disincentives to sign it. However, I don't see neutering the RSA</div><div>as a net positive in that regard. The community put section 12 into policy for a reason.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>There is no such thing as a legacy transfer. There is a transfer of resources from a legacy holder, but, absent an</div><div>awkward situation involving litigation these will almost always result in the space being handled as non-legacy</div><div>if the transfer is recognized by ARIN.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Remember, these are the intentions of the proposal, although I know you disagree with my legal interpretation, and thus the effect.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes... Your legal interpretation being contrary to statements made by ARIN counsel and John Curran, I</div><div>am inclined to believe that it is not correct and therefore the effect of your proposal differs from your</div><div>claimed effects.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">3. Provides for explicit protections against review audits for RSA holders after one year, bringing RSA rights more in accord with LRSA rights.<br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">Uh, yeah, I don't see that as a good thing. Quite the opposite. However, I do agree that it is an intended<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">consequence of the proposal.<br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4. Reduces transaction costs for transferers<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">I believe it will actually increase them.<br></blockquote><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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, I believe that the net price of the transaction will increase substantially. Further, the cost of</div><div>needs analysis is built into the ARIN transfer fee which I do not think will change significantly</div><div>as a result of this proposal. So, no price reduction and likely price increase. Doesn't look like</div><div>a savings to me.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">5. Reduces ARIN costs for needs analyses<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">Agreed, but, not necessarily something I see as a beneficial aspect.<br></blockquote><br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">6. Aligns ARIN policy with most possible interpretations of the legal rights of legacy holders<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">No, aligns ARIN policy with one possible interpretation of the legal rights of legacy holders.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">IMHO, not even the most probable one.<br></blockquote><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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You have already been told multiple times that your interpretation of the words "exclusive right to transfer"</div><div>is not correct. The Plzack declaration was substantially modified by later rulings in the Kremen case.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">7. Imposes a yearly limit on needs-free transactions intended to prevent cornering.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">Yes, but, this limit is effectively a no-op because anyone can create multiple entities needed<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to accomplish enough /12 transfers to meet their desires.<br></blockquote><br>I trust ARIN staff to detect these with the same diligence applied to needs tests and section 12 reviews.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>It doesn't matter. If they are different organizations, ARIN can't claim that they aren't different organizations</div><div>for policy purpose just because it's clear that they were created for the purpose of doing an end-run on</div><div>the policy. ARIN must interpret the policy as written, even if that interpretation appears absurd, as in</div><div>the case of the single aggregate clause in the transfer policy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">And likewise we have fairly addressed these issues.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">To some extent.<br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Without considering (any more) the merits of those prior discussions, I would like to invite the consideration of any other potential benefits or consequences which we have not discussed.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I am cognizant that this is proposal is a significant departure, and that the discussion of similar policy in APNIC consumed several years.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">As it did here prior to being rejected here and accepted there.<br></blockquote><br>I didn't know there had also been prior discussion here about this (or fairly similar) policy. Do you rember about when so I can search the archives?<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>In the early stages of 2008-2, there was discussion of a transfer policy without needs basis, at least among the AC before</div><div>we formulated 2008-2. I believe it was rejected by the community pretty much out of hand fairly early in the discussion</div><div>either at open policy hours and/or at the public policy meetings, but, it may have just been within the AC. After three</div><div>years and a whole lot of policy work, I have to admit my memory on exactly when and where a given discussion took</div><div>place is somewhat fuzzy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think we have covered pretty much all the bases in our relatively short but active discussion period, but I agree with Tom that we really should stretch our minds to consider all the potential pitfalls.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">So did we miss anything, or is there anything left to be said on the topics arrayed above? Any large loopholes or gotchas? Risks or threats we haven't considered?<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">One I think worth exploring is that given the recent staff interpretation of the term RSA in policy,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the requirement for RSA in the proposal may be insufficiently specific to express community<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">intent.<br></blockquote><br>I agree, though my intention was that it was the RSA, not an LRSA, but the RSA modified by my proposal.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Understood, but, staff has made it quite clear that they will not interpret the policy as</div><div>written in that manner.</div><div><br></div><div>Unfortunately, I am not sure that we can actually influence the choice of RSA through policy.</div><div>I'm hoping that a public clarification of this issue will be forthcoming soon.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Maybe the increased/decreased exposure of ARIN to lawsuits?<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">I think this would not significantly impact the legal exposure. We are as likely to get sued<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">by someone unable to obtain resources in the market on the basis that we failed to properly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">regulate need in the market as we are to get sued by someone opposed to our attempts<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to regulate need, IMHO.<br></blockquote><br>I can't see any legal right to sue ARIN if the community decides to drop the needs policy, but I am not a lawyer.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This is the united States. Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>I wonder if anybody has sued APNIC on that basis?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Entirely different legal system(s).</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Maybe the ARIN legal staff can comment on that.<br>But I can sure see somebody suing ARIN if ARIN re-issues their address to another allocant.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>ARIN wouldn't do that. What ARIN might do is issue addresses they have been hijacking to</div><div>another registrant, but, the point of policy is that it does not protect hijackers from this. If you</div><div>want the protections of guaranteed uniqueness, you have to play by the rules. If you do</div><div>an unregistered transfer, then, you aren't a registrant, you are a squatter at best and a</div><div>hijacker at worst.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>If ARIN's legal interpretation is that they can revoke legacy addresses if they are not utilized, for example, that leads to their reissuance, and legal trouble.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If they are still held by the original organization, generally ARIN will not do this. If they are being used</div><div>by an unregistered organization for an unregistered purpose, ARIN will probably first try to contact</div><div>the original organization to verify the intent. If a transfer was intended, ARIN would probably first attempt to work</div><div>with that organization to see if an 8.2 or 8.3 transfer could be made to fit the situation somehow. If they</div><div>cannot, or, the party using the addresses is unwilling to cooperate in that process, then, I have no</div><div>problem with ARIN reclaiming the addresses and I think that is the correct course of action.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>If ARIN's legal interpretation is that legacy addresses are outside its authority, that risk is minimalized.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>So long as they are held by the original legacy registrant or their successor in interest, I believe ARIN</div><div>will continue to provide registration services to them. There is a difference between not reclaiming them</div><div>and believing that they are outside of ARIN authority, however.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span"><br></font></div></blockquote><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span"><br></font></div></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span">Owen</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span"><br></font></div></div><br></blockquote></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote></div><br></body></html>