ARIN's RPKI Relying agreement
jcurran at arin.net
Thu Dec 4 19:19:13 UTC 2014
On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> 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.
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.
President and CEO
More information about the NANOG