Hi Randy, Thanks for your input. While putting the resources under a membership/contract can be a step in the right direction, it still wouldn't address the issues the NCC (and the membership by extension) is dealing with because of this gap. Resources in legacy status, regardless of whether there is a contractual relationship or not, need to undergo a more stringent diligence process for transfers that puts additional burden on the NCC. As Martin brought up earlier, the difference in average processing time between legacy transfers with vs without a contract is just an hour. Aside from this, that solution wouldn't address the issue of multiple organizations repeatedly using this gap in legacy resource and transfer policy to avoid paying the standard registration services rate and skipping the 24-month transfer lock that prevents the flipping of scarce resources, even though they weren't the original holders of the space and are effectively taking up NCC resources repeatedly to get these processed. Unfortunately, this one's not a bikeshed, and it's why Peter and I have taken the time to work on this proposal after it was deemed out of scope for the task force. We'll give the working group a few more days to provide early feedback and post the draft proposal for review soon. Thank you, Clara On 10/28/25, 2:32 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com <mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
In general, there is more automation of due diligence checks that can be leveraged for (1) parties with contractual relationships with the NCC vs no contractual relationship,
then perhaps what you want is that the recipient of legacy resources must register them as a member, juat as a recipient of non-legacy resources does. keep it simple. painting resources new colors is a bit too reminiscent of a bikeshed. randy