Hello McTim,
It is in both agreements:
Paragraph 6. of the RSA
Paragraph 7. of the LRSA.
As to your other comment, I think our policy is failing the Registry's users,
not the other way around :)
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:00 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Owen DeLong; Heather Schiller; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In contrast to my friend Owen, not only do I believe there is a very
> serious issue, but I believe this proposal is necessary for ARIN to
> have any hope of being relevant in the years to come. I don't mean to
> use that kind of hyperbole, but the issue is very real from my viewpoint.
> Allow me to explain.
>
> There are two different problems which this policy proposal solves.
>
> 1. Whois accuracy
> =============
>
> As an ARIN Hostmaster for 10 years, I saw a very high rate of
> legitimate transfers which were abandoned by the requestor. In turn,
> Whois did not get updated, and in most cases, remains out of date today.
>
> Think about that for a moment please: legitimate M&A activity
> occurred, but Whois never got updated. That's a failure of the system. Why
> does it fail?
>
> The common scenario is straight forward:
>
> 1. Company A buys company B.
> 2. Company A submits a transfer request to ARIN to have the IP
> address and AS number
> registrations reflect that Company A is now the registrant.
> 3. ARIN starts asking questions about the utilization of the number
> resources.
> 4. Company A walks away from the transfer and never returns.
>
> Step 3 is the consistent problem. In many cases, Company A never even
> submits the transfer request because they are scared off by step 3.
Then this is our (ARIN Community) problem isn't it, not the policy itself!!
<snip>
>
> Now to the second problem.
>
>
> 2. Conflict with the RSA:
> ==================
>
> John Curran can give a more accurate and nuanced history, but as best
> I can recall, ARIN tried to bring more legacy registration holders
> into the registry system by offering a Legacy Registration Services
> Agreement. One of the takeaways from that initial effort was that
> legacy registration holders were unwilling to sign any agreement which
> technically allowed ARIN to de-register address space that they had without
> their consent.
>
> One of the concessions made over time was language in the RSA
> documents which removed that concern; it prohibits ARIN from forcibly
> taking away space when the signer is in compliance with the other terms and
> conditions of the contract.
is this in the LSRA only, or in all RSAs??
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
