ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement

John Curran jcurran at
Thu Dec 4 19:19:13 UTC 2014

On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at> wrote:
> I (similar to Rob) have my own concerns about RPKI but do feel that
> this is an ARIN specific construct/wall that has been raised without
> action yet from ARIN.  

Jared - 
  Please be specific - are you referring to the indemnification clauses
  (which are existing in other RIRs as well), the method of agreement, 
  or not having ready access to the TAL, i.e. the click-accept access?

> The fact that the meeting was 2 months ago and you have not acted/discussed
> with your counsel says everything I need to know about the situation, your
> personal motives and your personal desires for the outcomes.  I hope it
> doesn’t represent your employer and that the ARIN Board brings it up with you.

  Incorrect.  Despite the lack of clarity, we started work on 27 October 
  with both inside and external counsel regarding drafting some updates
  to the RPKI legal framework.  This effort should be ready to be brought
  to the ARIN Board in January for their consideration, but it would be 
  helpful to have more clarity on the concerns (i.e. is it access to the 
  TAL, or the requirement for explicit agreement to terms and conditions, 
  or the presence of indemnification/warrant-disclaimer language regardless
  of method of binding)

  At present, I am working on addressing the TAL access and the explicit 
  agreement concerns that were raised during Wes's NANOG session.  These 
  are relatively straightforward to work with counsel and propose to the 
  ARIN Board for their consideration.  The issue of indemnification is far 
  more challenging, and hence my reason for asking about the underlying 
  need for such and how folks are handling its presence in other RIR RPKI 
  terms and conditions.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the NANOG mailing list