[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Staff Assessment

[Jeff Aitken]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 03:40:56PM -0400, Member Services wrote:
> 1. In section 2.8, the term organization is defined as one ?parent?
> organization be responsible for all of its associated companies? or
> subsidiaries? interactions with ARIN. 
> [...]
> Counsel has no position on the definition of organization.

This last sentence is surprising.  A number of folks have posted to PPML 
raising issues with this change and the staff assessment highlights one of
them as well.  I'm surprised that counsel "has no position" since this is
at least as "material" a change as the removal of the sunset clause.

I haven't heard anyone argue *in favor* of this change beyond point (6) in
the board's statement on 4/6/2009.  IMO, two of the biggest flaws are that:

- it is difficult or impossible to enforce for privately-held companies
  whose ownership details may not be a matter of public record, and

- it forces the "parent" organization to take on the burden of managing
  IP number resources for each subsidiary.

I understand the desire to protect against folks gaming the system, but the
second issue in particular seems like a pretty big unintended consequence.
The definition is also vague.  Which takes precedence, "common control" or
"ownership"?  Does Chrysler manage its own IP resources, or does Cerberus
Capital?  Or to use my former employer as an example: would Time Warner
be responsible for handling all ARIN interaction on behalf of AOL, Turner,
Time Inc., Warner Bros., et. al.?  If so, does that mean that the parent
organization pays a single fee for all resources used by all subsidiaries?

The word "organization" occurs over 100 times in the NRPM.  Is the board
satisfied that this new definition is appropriate in every case?

I do not support 2009-1, as written.


--Jeff