In message <[email protected]>, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... >> Second, with respect to the rather superficial legal analysis included in >> my prior email, that analysis was and is hampered somewhat by a key point >> of ignorance on my part. Specifically, it is unclear to me if ARIN staff >> (or policy) requires that resource-holding entities sign and return a fresh >> new RSA... presumably having the latest and greatest RSA version number... >> at every point in time when such an entity has requsted (or is assigned) >> some new allocation of number resources. Can any kind soul enlighten me >> on this point? > >If one engages with ARIN to obtain new resources (or make any similar >substantial >change to their number resource holdings), ARIN will seek entry into the >current RSA >if the present agreement is more than two versions back. We don't update the >RSA >very often, but feel that some leeway in this regard is still operational >sound and helps >reduce administrative overhead of working with ARIN. Thank you for this info John. My own feelings on this are quite entirely different. Although a case can be made that it is a laudable goal to reduce the "administrative overhead" that resource- holding entities must deal with, that consideration is, I believe, far outweighed by the value, to the community. to the membership, and yes, even to the staff, of having as many resource holders as possible bound by the exacting legal language of the latest and greatest RSA at all times. In fact, if by some miracle I were to be elected king of ARIN tomorrow, I would immediately decree that all resource holders that have ever entered into an RSA or LRSA contract with ARIN would be obliged to sign and submit a fresh and up-to-date new RSA or LRSA with ARIN annually, in conjunction with their annual fee payments. That having been said, I understand that I might possibly be the one and only person in the community holding such a view. Even so, acquiring new number resources from ARIN staff is, for most resource holders, a somewhat rare but very significant event, and I believe that it is not and would not be an undue burden on any resource holder to sign and submit a new, fresh, and up-to-date RSA or LRSA as a condition of being granted any new number resources. That having been said, I understand that this also should be the subject of its own separate and formal policy proposal. I will endeavor to create such. >> I can well understand why ARIN staff and management may wish to have the >> average Joe Schmo looking only at the most current version of the RSA, >> but deliberately making older versions of this key document unavalable, >> even to researchers, is unacceptable and should be rectified forthwith. > >This is not intentional (nor different than the practices of most >organizations) >but rather the desire to minimize confusion and potential for parties using the >wrong version when dealing with ARIN. However, it should be relatively easy >to provide a suitable reference archive, and we will endeavor get such setup >shortly for that purpose. Thank you for that also John. Much appreciated. Even some future Internet historians may someday thank you for making all versions of the RSA widely available. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
