From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 2 00:53:02 2011 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201112020553.pB25r2Kw018144@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 2 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 67.17% | 13685 | cja at daydream.com 50.00% | 1 | 32.83% | 6689 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 20374 | Total From owen at delong.com Fri Dec 2 16:38:24 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:38:24 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal 159 - IPv6 Subsequent Allocations In-Reply-To: <20111116163825.GE53523@trace.bind.com> References: <20111116163825.GE53523@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: <025FE9DB-EE6F-488C-8482-A337DB40DB30@delong.com> I would like to suggest the following modifications to the language for this proposal: 2.16 Utilized (IPv6) ... 3. Blocks Allocated to Serving Sites shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first provider assignment unit from the block is assigned to an external end-site. (e.g. a /36 allocation to a Serving Site with a provider assignment unit of /48 will be considered utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned to a customer from that /36.) I believe this clarifies the meaning intended in the proposal and uses terms already present and defined in the NRPM rather than creating a new term (tie down). Thoughts? Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Dec 2 17:53:53 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:53:53 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal 159 - IPv6 Subsequent Allocations In-Reply-To: <20111202222810.GF16536@trace.bind.com> References: <20111116163825.GE53523@trace.bind.com> <025FE9DB-EE6F-488C-8482-A337DB40DB30@delong.com> <20111202222810.GF16536@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: <8CDAE620-5116-4A7B-AB6E-764A5A44D705@delong.com> While you do contextually define "Tie down" in the revised language with the shepherds, it's not a term that is defined anywhere else in the NRPM, I think my proposal may offer greater clarity and less confusion. However, I think either is an adequate alternative so I will leave it to your collective judgments. Owen On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > While working with my shephards we came up with: > > "Tie down blocks otherwise known as aggregate allocations, for the purpose of assignment to customers; shall be co > nsidered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from aggre > gate assignment pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered utilized for subsequent allocation > s once the first /48 is assigned from the /36)." > > Would you agree with the above rewrite or still suggest the below? > > Cheers, > Aaron > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:38:24PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I would like to suggest the following modifications to the language for this proposal: >> >> 2.16 Utilized (IPv6) >> >> ... >> >> 3. Blocks Allocated to Serving Sites shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first provider assignment unit from the block is assigned to an external end-site. (e.g. a /36 allocation to a Serving Site with a provider assignment unit of /48 will be considered utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned to a customer from that /36.) >> >> I believe this clarifies the meaning intended in the proposal and uses terms already present and defined in the NRPM rather than creating a new term (tie down). >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Owen > > -- > > Aaron Hughes > President & Chief Technology Officer > aaron at 6connect.com > +1-408-329-6901 (Main) > +1-831-824-4161 (Direct) > 6connect, Inc. - Next Generation Network Automation > http://6connect.com/ From mike at nationwideinc.com Mon Dec 5 17:17:32 2011 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:17:32 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: Hello list, http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/borders_sells_65536_ipv4_addresses_12_each Borders has sold their /16 block for $12 per address. Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. Just FYI. Regards, Mike Burns -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Dec 5 18:33:47 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 23:33:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A9F5232-7F84-4BF2-85BE-C39EFE96B018@corp.arin.net> On Dec 5, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote: Hello list, http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/borders_sells_65536_ipv4_addresses_12_each Borders has sold their /16 block for $12 per address. Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. As should be expected, ARIN will provide consent if the transaction complies with the transfer policies as adopted. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 21:33:55 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 21:33:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > Hello list, > > http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/borders_sells_65536_ipv4_addresses_12_each > > > Borders has sold their /16 block for $12 per address. This would seem to signal confidence that these transactions are viable regardless of RIR considerations. > Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. The auction offering description says "may" and nothing about consent. http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final It's not clear where ARIN derives any authority over legacy holders who don't sign agreements with them. Especially prior to a transaction and in the bankruptcy court. Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Mon Dec 5 21:47:52 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 02:47:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/borders_sells_65536_ipv4_addresses_12_each >> >> >> Borders has sold their /16 block for $12 per address. > > This would seem to signal confidence that these transactions are > viable regardless of RIR considerations. Indeterminate, since this transaction specifically takes ARIN's approval into consideration. >> Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. > > The auction offering description says "may" and nothing about consent. > > http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final Mike was referring to the actual sale document submitted to the court, which states "The closing of the IA Sale is subject to, among other things, consent by ARIN (as defined below) and approval by this Court." FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 22:23:17 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >>> Hello list, >>> >>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/borders_sells_65536_ipv4_addresses_12_each >>> >>> >>> Borders has sold their /16 block for $12 per address. >> >> This would seem to signal confidence that these transactions are >> viable regardless of RIR considerations. > > ? Indeterminate, since this transaction specifically takes ARIN's > ? approval into consideration. I'd argue that's a two way street. ARIN isn't transparent in these matters so we don't know how this transpired. >>> Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. >> >> The auction offering description says "may" and nothing about consent. >> >> ? ? ?http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final > > ? Mike was referring to the actual sale document submitted to the I don't see a reference to court docs in the article that Mike referred to. > ? court, which states "The closing of the IA Sale is subject to, > ? among other things, consent by ARIN (as defined below) and > ? approval by this Court." It also says: "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to authorize the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN,(9) the IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN?s consent and the proposed order incorporates various protections of ARIN?s rights, which moots any need to consider any of these issues." This seems to underscore my question with regards to authority as well. We've discussed the Kremens case where ARIN submitted a statement saying it had no authority and now ARIN is saying that it does have authority. Now we have another court document where ARIN contradicts it's previous statement saying that it didn't have any authority. The room is spinning! :-) Looks like anothe dodged bullet. > ? > ? Now I see a reference to court docs. Thanks. In section four of the terms it states that the purchaser is going to sign an LRSA. Will there be another version of the LRSA specifically created for this transaction for 170.71.0.0/16 or will it be the stock LRSA? Thanks for the insight! Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Mon Dec 5 22:37:16 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 03:37:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. >>> >>> The auction offering description says "may" and nothing about consent. >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final >> >> Mike was referring to the actual sale document submitted to the > > I don't see a reference to court docs in the article that Mike referred to. Obtained by reading the linked references in the article Mike referred to. >> >> > > Now I see a reference to court docs. Thanks. > > In section four of the terms it states that the purchaser is going to > sign an LRSA. Will there be another version of the LRSA specifically > created for this transaction for 170.71.0.0/16 or will it be the stock > LRSA? Impossible to determine at this time; in any case, the LRSA will require compliance with policies set by the community per the court document - "14. Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, including, without limitation, paragraphs J, 3-8, and 11 hereof, (i) the IA Sale, as stated in the Agreements, is conditioned upon ARIN?s consent including any terms and/or conditions established by ARIN?s Transfer Policies or any other policies, guidelines, or regulations developed by ARIN and published on its website, as may be amended and supplemented from time to time (collectively, ?ARIN?s Policies?), (ii) the transfer of the Debtors? interests in the Internet Addresses to the Purchaser is subject to ARIN?s Policies, and (iii) the Debtors and the Purchaser are required to comply with ARIN?s Policies before any transfer of the Debtors? rights in the Internet Addresses may be effectuated. Nothing in this Order is intended, nor shall be construed, as exempting the Debtors and Purchaser from complying with the ARIN Policies." FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 23:01:39 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 23:01:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >>>>> Deal language requires ARIN ?consent?. >>>> >>>> The auction offering description says "may" and nothing about consent. >>>> >>>> ? ? ?http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final >>> >>> ? Mike was referring to the actual sale document submitted to the >> >> I don't see a reference to court docs in the article that Mike referred to. > > Obtained by reading the linked references in the article Mike referred to. I'm inspired to be pedantic this evening. I'll bite. This URL, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/05/borders_flogs_ipv4_addys/ - led to this URL http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/24/microsoft_ip_spend/ - and this - https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20110415.html - and this - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/21/trade_ipv4_com/ which led to this - http://www.tradeipv4.com/ Must be a hidden URL. :-) The article is also inaccurate. It states "This is only the second time a company has sold IP addresses in this way" which is in error. It's true that this is the second time that I recall that the US bankruptcy courts have been used to put a transaction outside of ARIN's control, but there have been others over the years. >>> ? >>> ? >> >> Now I see a reference to court docs. Thanks. >> >> In section four of the terms it states that the purchaser is going to >> sign an LRSA. Will there be another version of the LRSA specifically >> created for this transaction for 170.71.0.0/16 or will it be the stock >> LRSA? > > Impossible to determine at this time; in any case, the LRSA will require > compliance with policies set by the community per the court document - Which policies? > "14. Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, including, without limitation, paragraphs J, 3-8, and 11 hereof, (i) the IA Sale, as stated in the Agreements, is conditioned upon ARIN?s consent including any terms and/or conditions established by ARIN?s Transfer Policies or any other policies, guidelines, or regulations developed by ARIN and published on its website, as may be amended and supplemented from time to time (collectively, ?ARIN?s Policies?), (ii) the transfer of the Debtors? interests in the Internet Addresses to the Purchaser is subject to ARIN?s Policies, and (iii) the Debtors and the Purchaser are required to comply with ARIN?s Policies before any transfer of the Debtors? rights in the Internet Addresses may be effectuated. Nothing in this Order is intended, nor shall be construed, as exempting the Debtors and Purchaser from complying with the ARIN Policies." > [ .. ] >> Will there be another version of the LRSA specifically >> created for this transaction for 170.71.0.0/16 or will it be the stock >> LRSA? > > Impossible to determine at this time Looking forward to reading the documents. Best! -M< From jcurran at arin.net Mon Dec 5 23:21:11 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 04:21:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Obtained by reading the linked references in the article Mike referred to. > > I'm inspired to be pedantic this evening. I'll bite. > > This URL, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/05/borders_flogs_ipv4_addys/ > - led to this URL > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/24/microsoft_ip_spend/ - and this > - https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20110415.html - and > this - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/21/trade_ipv4_com/ which leads to this - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_canada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ which leads to this - http://www.circleid.com/posts/201112_borders_in_bankruptcy_aims_to_sell_65536_ipv4_addresses/ which mentions both the domaincite blog and the court document posting. > Must be a hidden URL. :-) > > The article is also inaccurate. It states "This is only the second > time a company has sold IP addresses in this way" which is in error. > It's true that this is the second time that I recall that the US > bankruptcy courts have been used to put a transaction outside of > ARIN's control, but there have been others over the years. Characterizing it as "outside of ARIN's control" when there is an explicit ARIN consent requirement seems to be disingenuous. Again, are you basing your view on just the offering memorandum or the actual filed court document? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 23:41:25 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 23:41:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:21 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I said: "I don't see a reference to court docs in the article that Mike referred to." >>> Obtained by reading the linked references in the article Mike referred to. >> >> I'm inspired to be pedantic this evening. I'll bite. >> >> This URL, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/05/borders_flogs_ipv4_addys/ >> - led to this URL >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/24/microsoft_ip_spend/ - and this >> - https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20110415.html - and >> this - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/21/trade_ipv4_com/ [ .. ] > which leads to this - > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_canada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ > which leads to this - > http://www.circleid.com/posts/201112_borders_in_bankruptcy_aims_to_sell_65536_ipv4_addresses/ > > which mentions both the domaincite blog and the court document posting. [ .. ] >> Must be a hidden URL. :-) Makes sense. :-) We'll agree to continue to disagree here. >> The article is also inaccurate. It states "This is only the second >> time a company has sold IP addresses in this way" which is in error. >> It's true that this is the second time that I recall that the US >> bankruptcy courts have been used to put a transaction outside of >> ARIN's control, but there have been others over the years. > > Characterizing it as "outside of ARIN's control" when there is an > explicit ARIN consent requirement seems to be disingenuous. ?Again, > are you basing your view on just the offering memorandum or the > actual filed court document? "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to authorize the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN" Who was it that said "doveryai, no proveryai"? I am looking forward to seeing the final outcome and reading the related documents. Additional responses without ARIN being fully transparent are pointless. FYI, and best! -M< From jcurran at arin.net Mon Dec 5 23:53:30 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 04:53:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Characterizing it as "outside of ARIN's control" when there is an >> explicit ARIN consent requirement seems to be disingenuous. Again, >> are you basing your view on just the offering memorandum or the >> actual filed court document? > > "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to > authorize the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection > by ARIN" Full sentence: "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to authorize the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN, the IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN?s consent and the proposed order incorporates various protections of ARIN?s rights, which moots any need to consider any of these issues." In this case, the parties have placed the transaction within ARIN's control, contrary to your comment about it being use of the bankruptcy courts to do otherwise. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Dec 6 10:27:27 2011 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:27:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Full sentence: > "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to authorize > the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN, the > IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN's consent and the proposed order > incorporates various protections of ARIN's rights, which moots any need > to consider any of these issues." Sounds like pretty reasonable wording to me. In the first part they don't concede anything, just in case something bizarre happened where they did want to try to proceed without ARIN. In the second they avoid all that mess by opting to make sure they get ARIN's approval for the transaction regardless (which is pretty sensible in preserving the value of the assets). If they didn't put in the "While the Debtors believe..." part it'd probably be alot tougher for them to try to make a case to proceed without ARIN, IF they felt they needed to do so for some reason. By putting that in, it simply looks like their trying to preserve their options. In essence, the first part is a safety valve, it costs them nothing to have in there.....and no one is going to challenge them on it because they aren't exercising those beliefs. It's kinda like saying "I believe I don't have to pay my tax's but I will anyway." As long as the IRS collects their money, you are pretty much free to believe what you want. Christopher Engel From jcurran at arin.net Tue Dec 6 14:54:36 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:54:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2061A2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2061A2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >>> In section four of the terms it states that the purchaser is going to >>> sign an LRSA. Will there be another version of the LRSA specifically >>> created for this transaction for 170.71.0.0/16 or will it be the stock >>> LRSA? >> >> Impossible to determine at this time > > [Milton L Mueller] That's an interesting response. So ARIN will improvise yet another version of the LRSA? Milton - As noted in my earlier response: any LRSA will require compliance with ARIN policies (already noted as a requirement in the court document.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 6 14:44:13 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:44:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2061A2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > In section four of the terms it states that the purchaser is going to > > sign an LRSA. Will there be another version of the LRSA specifically > > created for this transaction for 170.71.0.0/16 or will it be the stock > > LRSA? > > Impossible to determine at this time [Milton L Mueller] That's an interesting response. So ARIN will improvise yet another version of the LRSA? From bensons at queuefull.net Tue Dec 6 15:47:56 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:47:56 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Chris Engel wrote: >> Full sentence: >> "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to authorize >> the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN, the >> IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN's consent and the proposed order >> incorporates various protections of ARIN's rights, which moots any need >> to consider any of these issues." > > Sounds like pretty reasonable wording to me. In the first part they don't concede anything, just in case something bizarre happened where they did want to try to proceed without ARIN. In the second they avoid all that mess by opting to make sure they get ARIN's approval for the transaction regardless (which is pretty sensible in preserving the value of the assets). If they didn't put in the "While the Debtors believe..." part it'd probably be alot tougher for them to try to make a case to proceed without ARIN, IF they felt they needed to do so for some reason. By putting that in, it simply looks like their trying to preserve their options. > > In essence, the first part is a safety valve, it costs them nothing to have in there.....and no one is going to challenge them on it because they aren't exercising those beliefs. It's kinda like saying "I believe I don't have to pay my tax's but I will anyway." As long as the IRS collects their money, you are pretty much free to believe what you want. I think this description by Chris is insightful. So far, the most visible trades (e.g. Nortel-MSFT, Borders) have managed to fit into ARIN procedure. We can argue about the implementation details, compliance with policy, timing, etc, but in the end these trades have resulted in an updated ARIN Whois. And this is clearly good for the buyer as well as the community. However, the key phrase is "good for the buyer". It apparently has not been in anyone's interest to ignore ARIN during an IPv4 address trade. But if a buyer is told "no" to a Whois update, then we might expect a different outcome - one where ARIN is bypassed. And if sellers find better prices from a larger market (i.e. beyond those buyers willing to "justify need" to ARIN) then the probability of this conflict may increase. Please note that I'm not advocating the above conflict. I would explicitly advise all parties against it. However, I do recognize it as a possibility - as a likelihood, even. Therefore I do advocate that we plan for it. There are multiple (completed and pending) trades that do not have broad visibility. The lack of transparency means we may not know until after the fact, if ever, how these conclude. But nothing has yet proven that ARIN has any legal authority over these kind of transactions. This community should consider ways to avoid finding out, by being more accommodating to economic and legal reality. Cheers, -Benson From jcurran at arin.net Tue Dec 6 16:12:44 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 21:12:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > Please note that I'm not advocating the above conflict. I would explicitly advise all parties against it. However, I do recognize it as a possibility - as a likelihood, even. Therefore I do advocate that we plan for it. Done. ARIN is prepared to manage the Whois registry database in accordance with the number resource policies developed by the community, including the potential legal aspects that might arise in the event of conflict from requests outside of adopted policy. > There are multiple (completed and pending) trades that do not have broad visibility. The lack of transparency means we may not know until after the fact, if ever, how these conclude. But nothing has yet proven that ARIN has any legal authority over these kind of transactions. This community should consider ways to avoid finding out, by being more accommodating to economic and legal reality. Those parties that wish more accommodating transfer policies might want to get more involved in the public policy process, and/or encourage others to do the same. ARIN can only serve the needs of the Internet community as represented by those that participate in the public policy process. I do agree to the extent that more involvement in the policy process will help avoid surprises and conflict later on (and particularly if we can get more involvement at this crucial time leading up to IPv4 depletion.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Tue Dec 6 16:42:42 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:42:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <2D5AA465-C55C-49E6-8AD3-2E0741F93FCE@delong.com> > There are multiple (completed and pending) trades that do not have broad visibility. The lack of transparency means we may not know until after the fact, if ever, how these conclude. But nothing has yet proven that ARIN has any legal authority over these kind of transactions. This community should consider ways to avoid finding out, by being more accommodating to economic and legal reality. One of us fundamentally misunderstands the nature of IP address registrations and/or you are deliberately attempting to mislead the community. The use of the term legal authority is misleading at best, IMHO. ARIN manages a database. The database is useful because it allows cooperating entities to use numbers uniquely so as to avoid bigger conflicts on the internet. Addresses traded outside of ARIN policy cannot depend on this uniqueness as ARIN is perfectly free to register those addresses to another party. If and when two parties end up in court arguing over the right to advertise the same set of integers to the internet at large, one which allegedly bought them from some source whose rights to sell them are dubious at best and one which received their registration through the recognized registry of record, the outcome will certainly be of great interest to this community in a number of ways. However, getting to that point would be very damaging to both parties (possibly even utterly debilitating) for quite some time until they finally reach their day in court. So much so that I suspect such a case is actually unlikely to occur. I think most buyers would be averse to taking the risk of becoming the former organization and will, therefore, insist on working through ARIN if they are aware of the risk ahead of time. Buyers that are unaware of ARIN and become aware through such a conflict will likely choose the far more pragmatic approach of trying to find alternative address space or negotiating with the other organization to find a resolution faster than a court case could do so. The internet works because we all cooperate about uniqueness. When cooperation breaks down, so does the functional internet. Registries facilitate cooperation. They are not a center for enforcement. The policies by which registries administer the address space are those set by the community based on the community's perspective of the greatest common good for the community as a whole. IMHO, facilitating, encouraging, or otherwise enabling non-cooperating entities to take advantage of resource utilization and/or acquisition outside of the processes and policies of the community is absolutely contrary to the greatest common good of the community as a whole and encourages dysfunction and conflict rather than cooperation. The best thing about the internet is that it functions as a cooperative anarchy. The weakest thing about the internet is that it depends on functioning as a cooperative anarchy. A relatively small number of truly bad actors may be able to cause significant damage. To date, such collections have been perceived as damage and routed around. Once they collect an army of lawyers, it may become harder to route around them. Owen From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Dec 6 16:58:44 2011 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:58:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: > However, the key phrase is "good for the buyer". It apparently has not been > in anyone's interest to ignore ARIN during an IPv4 address trade. But if a > buyer is told "no" to a Whois update, then we might expect a different > outcome - one where ARIN is bypassed. And if sellers find better prices from > a larger market (i.e. beyond those buyers willing to "justify need" to ARIN) > then the probability of this conflict may increase. > > Please note that I'm not advocating the above conflict. I would explicitly > advise all parties against it. However, I do recognize it as a possibility - as a > likelihood, even. Therefore I do advocate that we plan for it. > > There are multiple (completed and pending) trades that do not have broad > visibility. The lack of transparency means we may not know until after the > fact, if ever, how these conclude. But nothing has yet proven that ARIN has > any legal authority over these kind of transactions. This community should > consider ways to avoid finding out, by being more accommodating to > economic and legal reality. > > Cheers, > -Benson Benson, Thanks, although I do have to wonder what was actualy being sold if a company had the intention of bypassing ARIN & WHOIS. I mean why would an entity need to pay anyone $12 per address to assign IP addresses to thier servers that weren't going to be listed authoritatively by ARIN....when they could do the same exact thing for FREE right now? I mean ARIN doesn't control what addresses are assigned to individual machines on someones network. They just control the listing service that most carriers elect to use when determining where stuff gets routed, or am I missing something? So if you didn't care about authoritative WHOIS listing....why would you go pay some other company millions of dollars for address space that you could just unilateraly assign yourself (and face the exact same consequences for not having listed in WHOIS). Christopher Engel From mike at nationwideinc.com Tue Dec 6 17:12:48 2011 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:12:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: Hi Chris, Response below > > Thanks, although I do have to wonder what was actualy being sold if a > company had the intention of bypassing ARIN & WHOIS. I mean why would an > entity need to pay anyone $12 per address to assign IP addresses to thier > servers that weren't going to be listed authoritatively by ARIN....when > they could do the same exact thing for FREE right now? > > I mean ARIN doesn't control what addresses are assigned to individual > machines on someones network. They just control the listing service that > most carriers elect to use when determining where stuff gets routed, or > am I missing something? So if you didn't care about authoritative WHOIS > listing....why would you go pay some other company millions of dollars for > address space that you could just unilateraly assign yourself (and face > the exact same consequences for not having listed in WHOIS). > > > Christopher Engel Hi Chris, No provider I know is going to accept advertisements of address blocks without testing for uniqueness somehow. Checking whois will provide some information, and a chain of custody from the whois registrant to the party seeking to advertise those blocks, along with customer attestation, covers the provider from tortious interference claims. Result is the blocks are advertised and used, but whois is degraded. Regards, Mike Burns From bensons at queuefull.net Tue Dec 6 17:13:21 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:13:21 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <2D5AA465-C55C-49E6-8AD3-2E0741F93FCE@delong.com> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <2D5AA465-C55C-49E6-8AD3-2E0741F93FCE@delong.com> Message-ID: John Curran wrote: >> Please note that I'm not advocating the above conflict. I would explicitly advise all parties against it. However, I do recognize it as a possibility - as a likelihood, even. Therefore I do advocate that we plan for it. > > Done. ARIN is prepared to manage the Whois registry database in > accordance with the number resource policies developed by the > community, including the potential legal aspects that might arise > in the event of conflict from requests outside of adopted policy. Thanks, John. Can you elaborate? Does ARIN (staff and counsel) feel that "the potential legal aspects" are optimally dealt with by existing mechanisms, e.g. as opposed to alternative policy and/or procedures? (I suppose the answer requires definition of the word "optimally", but I'll leave that for you to define.) > I do agree to the extent that more involvement in the policy > process will help avoid surprises and conflict later on (and > particularly if we can get more involvement at this crucial > time leading up to IPv4 depletion.) Agreed. Not that it reduces our need to pursue understanding of the broader issues at play. But we all benefit from more discussion and analysis, with a broader community, in advance of potential problems. Cheers, -Benson From jcurran at arin.net Tue Dec 6 17:21:32 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:21:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <2D5AA465-C55C-49E6-8AD3-2E0741F93FCE@delong.com> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > John Curran wrote: >> Done. ARIN is prepared to manage the Whois registry database in >> accordance with the number resource policies developed by the >> community, including the potential legal aspects that might arise >> in the event of conflict from requests outside of adopted policy. > > Thanks, John. > > Can you elaborate? As it relates to strategy for handling potential legal issues in this area? I'll have to decline (as it would contrary to ARIN and its community to more publicly elaborate, other than indicating that we are well prepared.) >> I do agree to the extent that more involvement in the policy >> process will help avoid surprises and conflict later on (and >> particularly if we can get more involvement at this crucial >> time leading up to IPv4 depletion.) > > Agreed. Not that it reduces our need to pursue understanding of the broader issues at play. But we all benefit from more discussion and analysis, with a broader community, in advance of potential problems. That is highly recommended. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bensons at queuefull.net Tue Dec 6 18:39:29 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:39:29 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <2D5AA465-C55C-49E6-8AD3-2E0741F93FCE@delong.com> Message-ID: <90A207B6-92D0-4F1D-81ED-92BC1562960D@queuefull.net> On Dec 6, 2011, at 4:21 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 6, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> >> Can you elaborate? > > As it relates to strategy for handling potential legal issues in this area? > I'll have to decline (as it would contrary to ARIN and its community to > more publicly elaborate, other than indicating that we are well prepared.) That's fair. But without elaborating on the legal strategy itself, can you answer the second part of my question? (For reference, it was: Does ARIN (staff and counsel) feel that "the potential legal aspects" are optimally dealt with by existing mechanisms, e.g. as opposed to alternative policy and/or procedures?) Thanks, -Benson From jcurran at arin.net Tue Dec 6 18:59:51 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 23:59:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <90A207B6-92D0-4F1D-81ED-92BC1562960D@queuefull.net> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <2D5AA465-C55C-49E6-8AD3-2E0741F93FCE@delong.com> <90A207B6-92D0-4F1D-81ED-92BC1562960D@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 7:39 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > That's fair. But without elaborating on the legal strategy itself, can you answer the second part of my question? > > (For reference, it was: Does ARIN (staff and counsel) feel that "the potential legal aspects" are optimally dealt with by existing mechanisms, e.g. as opposed to alternative policy and/or procedures?) It is not possible to know if anything is 'optimal' when dealing with unknown threats, but current policies and procedures appear sufficient; i.e. there is no policy or process changes that are _critical_ to ARIN's success. Note that each draft policy has a staff and legal review, and in cases where the legal footing of ARIN would be improved, it is noted. For example, with respect to Draft Policy 2011-12 (Set Transfer Need to 24 Months), ARIN General Counsel noted: "ARIN counsel strongly supports the immediate extension of assessed need from 12 to 24 months for proposed transfers. It is clear the longer time period will appropriately facilitate legally simpler transactions by those who are seeking to follow ARIN's policies." Thus, despite our current legal position being sufficient, 2011-12 is case adoption of a policy change would move us closer to "optimally dealing with" potential situations. One would have to look at the staff and legal review for each draft policy to determine if there were other cases like this one. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Tue Dec 6 20:59:31 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:59:31 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Response below > >> >> Thanks, although I do have to wonder what was actualy being sold if a company had the intention of bypassing ARIN & WHOIS. I mean why would an entity need to pay anyone $12 per address to assign IP addresses to thier servers that weren't going to be listed authoritatively by ARIN....when they could do the same exact thing for FREE right now? >> >> I mean ARIN doesn't control what addresses are assigned to individual machines on someones network. They just control the listing service that most carriers elect to use when determining where stuff gets routed, or am I missing something? So if you didn't care about authoritative WHOIS listing....why would you go pay some other company millions of dollars for address space that you could just unilateraly assign yourself (and face the exact same consequences for not having listed in WHOIS). >> >> >> Christopher Engel > > Hi Chris, > > No provider I know is going to accept advertisements of address blocks without testing for uniqueness somehow. > Checking whois will provide some information, and a chain of custody from the whois registrant to the party seeking to advertise those blocks, along with customer attestation, covers the provider from tortious interference claims. > > Result is the blocks are advertised and used, but whois is degraded. > What happens when those chain of custody records no longer point to the current whois record, but, whois is updated to reflect the actual legitimate registrant of the reclaimed block after ARIN noticed that the block was no longer in use by it's proper registrant and was unable to complete a section 8 transfer to the current usurper? I would not want to be the organization that had purchased the block in such a situation. Owen From mike at nationwideinc.com Tue Dec 6 21:15:55 2011 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 21:15:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D@video> Hi Owen, >What happens when those chain of custody records no longer point to the >current whois record, but, whois is updated to reflect the actual >legitimate registrant of the reclaimed block after ARIN noticed that the >block was no longer in use by it's proper registrant and was unable to >complete a section 8 transfer to the current usurper? >I would not want to be the organization that had purchased the block in >such a situation. >Owen I would not want to be the stooge who was allocated the reissued block in such a situation. I bet ARIN's counsel wouldn't want to be in a position to defend a claim of tortious interference in a contract. These silly threats of revokation and reissuance to some poor dupe of a registrant betray a real lack of understanding of the role of steward and of contract law. And they would be more believable if they had ever occurred in the real world. Can you provide an example? A steward doesn't cause havoc by creating conditions whereby a state of non-uniqueness exists in our Internet for no good reason. And taking steps to revoke and reissue legacy numbers involved in a non section 8 transfer would be a dangerous fools errand, IMO. Prop-151 resolves this issue, among others. Regards, Mike From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 22:55:02 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 06:55:02 +0300 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D@video> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D@video> Message-ID: On 12/7/11, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi Owen, > >>What happens when those chain of custody records no longer point to the >>current whois record, but, whois is updated to reflect the actual >>legitimate registrant of the reclaimed block after ARIN noticed that the >>block was no longer in use by it's proper registrant and was unable to >>complete a section 8 transfer to the current usurper? > >>I would not want to be the organization that had purchased the block in >>such a situation. > >>Owen > > I would not want to be the stooge who was allocated the reissued block in > such a situation. > > I bet ARIN's counsel wouldn't want to be in a position to defend a claim of > tortious interference in a contract. > > These silly threats of revokation and reissuance to some poor dupe of a > registrant betray a real lack of understanding of the role of steward and of > contract law. And they would be more believable if they had ever occurred in > the real world. Can you provide an example? A long time ago and in a different part of the world, I was a RIR hostmaster, The very last thing I did before I left was to revoke a block (and ASN) that had been "sold" to a guy via an IRC channel. I can't attest to the fact that it has been re-issued, but I'm pretty sure it has been by now. Hijacked Internet resources are routinely "reclaimed" by RIRs. > > A steward doesn't cause havoc by creating conditions whereby a state of > non-uniqueness exists in our Internet for no good reason. > > And taking steps to revoke and reissue legacy numbers involved in a non > section 8 transfer would be a dangerous fools errand, IMO. How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 06:14:50 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:14:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D@video> References: <"E43D9F08-7 53E-4B81-AB82-CADA58276F1A"@arin.net> <"DF705851-CCF5-482F-894 4-284E6A7B7589"@arin.net> <"C0EC3609-4820-4F4D-980B-0DB3502899 AD"@arin.net> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D@video> Message-ID: <0F5C191D-6220-4696-8F48-F93E92A02241@arin.net> On Dec 6, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > A steward doesn't cause havoc by creating conditions whereby a state of non-uniqueness exists in our Internet for no good reason. Mike - To be clear, we'll always maintain a state of uniqueness in registry entries, and parties following the registry will benefit as a result. This does not inhibit you from configuring your routers with any IP addresses that you like, and the actual use of IP address blocks in the Internet is not assured to be unique (particularly if parties are selling 'something' that doesn't involve changes to registry entries) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at nationwideinc.com Wed Dec 7 10:10:10 2011 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:10:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D@video> Message-ID: <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> Hi McTim, >How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case? -- >Cheers, >McTim This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking. Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block. I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances. My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer. I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked. Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is one of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into RSA space. Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 10:31:22 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:31:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > > My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in the region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including IANA and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN specifically to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated.[*] [*] > ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer. An amusing theory. Also worth considering is that someone trying to sell integers, who knows in advance that any uniqueness is the result of the registry which they don't plan on complying with, may easily be seen as engaging in fraud (particularly if they don't make the purchaser well aware of this little detail at the time of the transaction.) In most states, there are very clear laws about this sort of behavior, although they were passed due to the creative 'sale' of bridges and swampland. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 7 10:31:24 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:31:24 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> Message-ID: <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi McTim, > > >> How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case? > > -- >> Cheers, > >> McTim > > > This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking. > Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block. Even legacy addresses were issued on a needs basis with the expectation that at the end of need, the block would be returned to the community for reallocation. While this expectation may not be in writing provably old enough to serve as documentation or policy, that was the reasonable expectation of the (at the time friendly and not monetarily based) community. If party B chooses not to engage in a section 8 transfer, and party A is no longer using the addresses (whether defunct, unreachable, etc.), then ARIN cannot distinguish party B from a hijacker and party B has no documentable right to any ARIN registration. The appropriate action in such a case is for ARIN to delete party A's registration and return the addresses to the ARIN free pool. > I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances. You can argue that it is not a hijack, but, from a policy perspective, it is indistinguishable from one. > My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. I think this misses the key point... ARIN has no contract with legacy holders which requires them to maintain any registration for those holders in their databases. ARIN chooses to do so for the community benefit and out of good will. ARIN has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do so for third parties that choose to attempt to operate outside of the community and in a manner contrary to policies set by that community. Remember, ARIN revocation is not taking the addresses away from them. It is merely deleting the registration which never pointed to party B in the first place. Once the registration to party A is deleted, the addresses should become part of the free pool and would naturally then be registered to some other party C. While it does not guarantee party C that they can use those addresses effectively on the internet, those parties that choose to work within the community according to policy are likely to give more weight to the registration in the ARIN database(s) than to some arbitrary contract between a former legacy holder and a third party that refuses to work within the system established by the community for managing address uniqueness and registration. > ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer. ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action against party B (derouting). > I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked. I don't think elevating those that choose not to participate in the community to a level of sovereignty over the community is a rational approach at all. That would be sort of like allowing people who wanted to be above the law to buy exemptions from the law. While such a concept has existed in the past and there are those that would argue that it materially happens today (though not within the laws of the US at least), conceptually, it was retired long ago and I don't believe that the majority would consider it a desirable concept. > Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is one of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into RSA space. Current policy requires an RSA of the buyer, too. So I don't see how that is a benefit of 151 vs. current policy. Owen From mike at nationwideinc.com Wed Dec 7 11:22:56 2011 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:22:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk><49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0 CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D"@video><63F1407419534FCB 9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> Message-ID: <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85@MPC> >That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in >the region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including IANA and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN specifically to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated.[*] >[*] All the chain of custody documents I have seen start with the US Commerce contract. >> ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data >> therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we >> tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be >> liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the >> address rights holder and the buyer. >An amusing theory. Also worth considering is that someone trying to sell integers, who knows in advance that any uniqueness is the result of the registry which they don't plan on complying with, may easily be seen as engaging in fraud (particularly if they don't make the purchaser well aware of this little detail at the time of the transaction.) In most states, there are very clear laws about this sort of behavior, although they were passed due to the creative 'sale' of bridges and swampland. >/John An amusing counter-theory, I hope for ARIN's sake this is not the double-secret legal strategy which may not be spoken of. But then we are neither of us lawyers, maybe it's time for ARIN counsel to address this issue openly and transparently? After all, the numbers were presumed to be unique when they were doled out prior to the ARIN registry's existence. Phone numbers are also integers, yet they are bought and sold. Domains are just letters and numbers, yet they are bought and sold. Regards, Mike From cengel at conxeo.com Wed Dec 7 11:33:48 2011 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:33:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> Message-ID: > ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of > addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations > retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid > registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a > unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense > of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN > or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the > internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action > against party B (derouting). On the other hand, it's probably best for everyone involved if the above scenario is avoided. One thing to reclaim space that has been "high jacked", another thing to reclaim it from organizations who do have some reasonable non-arbitrary basis for believing they have a legitimate claim to such space....such as a Bankruptcy Court approving said transfer or a contract from the entity which is legitimately listed as holder of that space in the registry. In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far. Introducing degrees of uncertainty, even if it was technically within the bounds of policy....probably doesn't serve anyone's interests well. Christopher Engel From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 11:45:07 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:45:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85@MPC> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0 CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D@video> <"63F1407419534FCB 9FF31B3D22EC08D1"@MPC> <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85@MPC> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in the >> region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including IANA >> and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN specifically >> to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by which >> they are managed and allocated.[*] >> >> [*] > > All the chain of custody documents I have seen start with the US Commerce contract. The NSF press release above is fairly clear. There is also the corresponding NSF Cooperative Agreement modifications (#6 and #7); online copies seems to available here: > But then we are neither of us lawyers, maybe it's time for ARIN counsel to address this issue openly and transparently? ARIN's position is quite clear; I repeated it here two days ago: "ARIN is prepared to manage the Whois registry database in accordance with the number resource policies developed by the community, including the potential legal aspects that might arise in the event of conflict from requests outside of adopted policy." Parties obviously have available to them mechanisms of the legal system if they feel ARIN needs to manage the registry in some manner other than based on community policy. Such parties are the ones who need to assert alternative legal theories; that is what the court system is designed to sort out. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Wed Dec 7 11:51:47 2011 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:51:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85@MPC> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk><49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0 CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE283037BD7B1D"@video><63F1407419534FCB 9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85@MPC> Message-ID: <4EDF99A3.8030009@abenaki.wabanaki.net> [Responding to an error of Mike Burns, 3rd para, below.] > After all, the numbers were presumed to be unique when they were doled out prior to the ARIN registry's existence. Well, if the additional assumption is made that one or more routes to two or more of the numbered resources exists, which became a reasonable assumption after address assignment began, but was optional ab initio, and remains so (see rfc1918 and other addressing schemes). > Phone numbers are also integers, yet they are bought and sold. There exist more than one numbering plan for circuit networks. Policy present in one does not guarantee policy present in any other. Allocation policy is not technology, so it is mechanism independent, and therefore non-universal where the mechanism is present. > Domains are just letters and numbers, yet they are bought and sold. Not correct in one or more namespaces, e.g., one or more namespaces managed through the "IANA Function" and associated contracts. That end-users "buy" and "sell" what they think is a property interest in strings for which a globally unique resolution (see routing, above) to some resource(s) via a look-up protocol is a given. Some people think "the web" is "the net". Language has contexts, and use of a term in one context does not invalidate different uses of the term in another context. Eric From hpreston at flexiant.com Wed Dec 7 11:49:40 2011 From: hpreston at flexiant.com (Hannah Preston) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:49:40 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <999e0225-d270-443e-92db-bada570268d5@zimbra002> I have unsubcribed to this can you remove me from your mailing list I feel that emails that are sent to me are messy and of no real value ----- Original Message ----- From: arin-ppml-request at arin.net To: arin-ppml at arin.net Sent: Wednesday, 7 December, 2011 4:33:52 PM Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to arin-ppml at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arin-ppml-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at arin-ppml-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (John Curran) 2. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Mike Burns) 3. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (John Curran) 4. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Owen DeLong) 5. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Mike Burns) 6. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Chris Engel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:14:50 +0000 From: John Curran To: Mike Burns Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: <0F5C191D-6220-4696-8F48-F93E92A02241 at arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Dec 6, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > A steward doesn't cause havoc by creating conditions whereby a state of non-uniqueness exists in our Internet for no good reason. Mike - To be clear, we'll always maintain a state of uniqueness in registry entries, and parties following the registry will benefit as a result. This does not inhibit you from configuring your routers with any IP addresses that you like, and the actual use of IP address blocks in the Internet is not assured to be unique (particularly if parties are selling 'something' that doesn't involve changes to registry entries) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:10:10 -0500 From: "Mike Burns" To: "McTim" , Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1 at MPC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi McTim, >How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case? -- >Cheers, >McTim This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking. Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block. I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances. My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer. I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked. Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is one of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into RSA space. Regards, Mike ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:31:22 +0000 From: John Curran To: Mike Burns Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net \(arin-ppml at arin.net\)" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > > My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in the region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including IANA and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN specifically to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated.[*] [*] > ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer. An amusing theory. Also worth considering is that someone trying to sell integers, who knows in advance that any uniqueness is the result of the registry which they don't plan on complying with, may easily be seen as engaging in fraud (particularly if they don't make the purchaser well aware of this little detail at the time of the transaction.) In most states, there are very clear laws about this sort of behavior, although they were passed due to the creative 'sale' of bridges and swampland. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:31:24 -0800 From: Owen DeLong To: "Mike Burns" Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi McTim, > > >> How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case? > > -- >> Cheers, > >> McTim > > > This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking. > Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block. Even legacy addresses were issued on a needs basis with the expectation that at the end of need, the block would be returned to the community for reallocation. While this expectation may not be in writing provably old enough to serve as documentation or policy, that was the reasonable expectation of the (at the time friendly and not monetarily based) community. If party B chooses not to engage in a section 8 transfer, and party A is no longer using the addresses (whether defunct, unreachable, etc.), then ARIN cannot distinguish party B from a hijacker and party B has no documentable right to any ARIN registration. The appropriate action in such a case is for ARIN to delete party A's registration and return the addresses to the ARIN free pool. > I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances. You can argue that it is not a hijack, but, from a policy perspective, it is indistinguishable from one. > My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. I think this misses the key point... ARIN has no contract with legacy holders which requires them to maintain any registration for those holders in their databases. ARIN chooses to do so for the community benefit and out of good will. ARIN has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do so for third parties that choose to attempt to operate outside of the community and in a manner contrary to policies set by that community. Remember, ARIN revocation is not taking the addresses away from them. It is merely deleting the registration which never pointed to party B in the first place. Once the registration to party A is deleted, the addresses should become part of the free pool and would naturally then be registered to some other party C. While it does not guarantee party C that they can use those addresses effectively on the internet, those parties that choose to work within the community according to policy are likely to give more weight to the registration in the ARIN database(s) than to some arbitrary contract between a former legacy holder and a third party that refuses to work within the system established by the community for managing address uniqueness and registration. > ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer. ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action against party B (derouting). > I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked. I don't think elevating those that choose not to participate in the community to a level of sovereignty over the community is a rational approach at all. That would be sort of like allowing people who wanted to be above the law to buy exemptions from the law. While such a concept has existed in the past and there are those that would argue that it materially happens today (though not within the laws of the US at least), conceptually, it was retired long ago and I don't believe that the majority would consider it a desirable concept. > Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is one of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into RSA space. Current policy requires an RSA of the buyer, too. So I don't see how that is a benefit of 151 vs. current policy. Owen ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:22:56 -0500 From: "Mike Burns" To: "John Curran" Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85 at MPC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original >That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in >the region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including IANA and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN specifically to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated.[*] >[*] All the chain of custody documents I have seen start with the US Commerce contract. >> ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data >> therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we >> tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be >> liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the >> address rights holder and the buyer. >An amusing theory. Also worth considering is that someone trying to sell integers, who knows in advance that any uniqueness is the result of the registry which they don't plan on complying with, may easily be seen as engaging in fraud (particularly if they don't make the purchaser well aware of this little detail at the time of the transaction.) In most states, there are very clear laws about this sort of behavior, although they were passed due to the creative 'sale' of bridges and swampland. >/John An amusing counter-theory, I hope for ARIN's sake this is not the double-secret legal strategy which may not be spoken of. But then we are neither of us lawyers, maybe it's time for ARIN counsel to address this issue openly and transparently? After all, the numbers were presumed to be unique when they were doled out prior to the ARIN registry's existence. Phone numbers are also integers, yet they are bought and sold. Domains are just letters and numbers, yet they are bought and sold. Regards, Mike ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:33:48 -0500 From: Chris Engel To: 'Owen DeLong' , Mike Burns Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of > addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations > retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid > registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a > unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense > of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN > or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the > internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action > against party B (derouting). On the other hand, it's probably best for everyone involved if the above scenario is avoided. One thing to reclaim space that has been "high jacked", another thing to reclaim it from organizations who do have some reasonable non-arbitrary basis for believing they have a legitimate claim to such space....such as a Bankruptcy Court approving said transfer or a contract from the entity which is legitimately listed as holder of that space in the registry. In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far. Introducing degrees of uncertainty, even if it was technically within the bounds of policy....probably doesn't serve anyone's interests well. Christopher Engel ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7 **************************************** -- With my best regards Hannah Hannah Preston Flexiant Ltd Tel: +44 203 371 3653 Fax: +44 1506 606 013 www.flexiant.com From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 11:59:51 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:59:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Chris Engel wrote: > In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far. Chris - Perhaps you meant to say "it would behoove the ARIN community"? ARIN, per se, just gets to turn the crank and implement policy; it is the community that gets to propose, deliberate on, and ultimately recommend changes to policy. The community needs to consider the needs of all address holders and address holders need to realize that ARIN will maintain the registry according to the policies and hence participate to obtain the policies they need. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From lar at mwtcorp.net Wed Dec 7 12:22:53 2011 From: lar at mwtcorp.net (Larry Ash) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:22:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> References: Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:10:10 -0500 > > > This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking >the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking. > Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and >party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant >justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block. > > I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances. > > My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights >holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these >addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed. By 1994, when I was allocated my first IP addresses, it was made clear that the ip address allocation was not property and that I was only receiving a Limited Right to Use. The fact the ARIN didn't exist makes little difference since they are filling the role of its predecessors and are making an honest effort to support those legacy allocation holders. It would appear that ARIN's case is stronger than many would like. When you "sell" an ip allocation you are really selling the idea that your allocation's route will be allowed into core route tables. Convention says that will probably happen but others could come and offer incentive's to allow their routes instead of yours. If you think someone is willing to pay $12/IP for whois registration itself I beg to differ. I think we have seen enough of the ip market to already predict that it will not end well. IPv4 will be replaced not by pressure of scarcity but because it's only a matter of time before it's so tied up in claims and counter claims that few want to touch it unless ARIN and the other RIR's assert a firm hand. Maybe even then. The idea that a "free market" will make an assortment of multinational companies, swindlers and foreign governments want to play nice with each other is somewhat laughable. I'm a big free market guy, but there is nothing like air supremacy and an army of lawyers to "level the playing field" in your favor. > ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data >therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we >tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable >for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights >holder and the buyer. > > I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while >recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of >non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. >With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked. > Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is >one of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all >parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into >RSA space. > > Regards, > > Mike > Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 From bensons at queuefull.net Wed Dec 7 13:12:50 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:12:50 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> Message-ID: <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> Hi, Chris. On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > On the other hand, it's probably best for everyone involved if the above scenario is avoided. > [...] > In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far. Agreed. > Introducing degrees of uncertainty, even if it was technically within the bounds of policy....probably doesn't serve anyone's interests well. I think there is a fundamental uncertainty underlying this discussion. And you asked a similar question yesterday, that I failed to answer. The question is, where is the origin of one's "bundle of rights" in an IP address? My perspective is that these rights have their source in mutual recognition, just like any other property. (For instance, our society has collectively recognized rights to Real Property and embodied it in law. Our legislation, legal system, etc, have documented and tested the definition and boundaries of Real Property rights. Likewise, this is true for various other forms of property.) To an extent, this has been acknowledged by the US courts as they've recognized the exclusive rights of a seller to transfer IP addresses as an asset. But I admit, there is relatively little case law, and our legal framework is probably going to evolve. There are others that apparently believe these rights have their source in ARIN's registry. Not to be disingenuous, I must admit that there are probably many subtle variations on this view, and it would be better if people explained themselves rather than allowing me to do it. ;) This fundamental difference matters, because it can be translated in terms of the Whois database. My perspective is that the Whois data should reflect actual ownership, which is an external thing based in broader society and law. In this view, the role of ARIN is primarily administrative and not governmental. The ownership rights, as determined by law, would take precedence - therefore, conflicting data in Whois would be incorrect, regardless of whether it was arrived at via policy etc. (Note that this situation is different for legacy versus RSA-based address blocks.) I'm sure others will disagree, and won't hesitate to make their opinions known. But I think it's worth acknowledging the fundamental difference, because otherwise we'll never converge on an understanding of policy and implementation. And until we converge, there is an unfortunate degree of uncertainty. Cheers, -Benson From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 13:20:10 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:20:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > To an extent, this has been acknowledged by the US courts as they've recognized the exclusive rights of a seller to transfer IP addresses as an asset. Benson - Please provide a citation for the above, because I am not aware of any court ruling to this effect. The only findings that I am aware of are rulings that support the sale of an address holders rights in an address block in a manner that does not interfere with ARIN and ARIN community's rights with respect to the address block. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 13:32:29 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:32:29 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > >> To an extent, this has been acknowledged by the US courts as they've recognized the exclusive rights of a seller to transfer IP addresses as an asset. > > Benson - > > Please provide a citation for the above, because I am not aware > of any court ruling to this effect. The only findings that I am > aware of are rulings that support the sale of an address holders > rights in an address block in a manner that does not interfere with > ARIN and ARIN community's rights with respect to the address block. For the purposes of saving some time (since everyone is going to go looking for much of the same information), let me outline the Nortel/MSFT outcome: To be clear, Nortel did transfer its rights of certain address registrations to Microsoft. Rights can indeed be treated as an asset of an estate (e.g. airspace rights, mining rights, license rights) but that does not mean that the underlying item is a form of "free and clear" property, only that something (often limited in nature) has been transferred. The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and interests "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended sale and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". Microsoft entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN, which delineated their rights applicable to their use of the number resources. In summary, this case's outcome was that it was in all parties interests to deal only with those rights that the Internet number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated were available to the address holder, as opposed to a sale "free and clear" as has been otherwise suggested. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at nationwideinc.com Wed Dec 7 14:08:51 2011 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:08:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY "CAMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk><49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0 CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk><"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video><63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC><08 DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com><2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3 BAC2C306@queuefull.net><9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <13375A1E35E34B0A9AB5DAEC915DA8CE@MPC> In the MS/Nortel deal I will note the judge said that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer addresses which were not registered to Nortel, but in fact were allocated to their bankrupt prior acquisitions. Nowhere in the deal was there language stating that Nortel had that right only due to after-the-fact 8.2 transfers. Rather it appears he accepted the chain of custody documents showing that Nortel acquired the exclusive rights to those addresses without regard to ARIN transfer policies. Thus the judge accepted that the address rights flowed from one company to another without any regard to ARIN policies. I find this significant. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: John Curran Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:32 PM To: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > >> To an extent, this has been acknowledged by the US courts as they've >> recognized the exclusive rights of a seller to transfer IP addresses as >> an asset. > > Benson - > > Please provide a citation for the above, because I am not aware > of any court ruling to this effect. The only findings that I am > aware of are rulings that support the sale of an address holders > rights in an address block in a manner that does not interfere with > ARIN and ARIN community's rights with respect to the address block. For the purposes of saving some time (since everyone is going to go looking for much of the same information), let me outline the Nortel/MSFT outcome: To be clear, Nortel did transfer its rights of certain address registrations to Microsoft. Rights can indeed be treated as an asset of an estate (e.g. airspace rights, mining rights, license rights) but that does not mean that the underlying item is a form of "free and clear" property, only that something (often limited in nature) has been transferred. The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and interests "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended sale and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". Microsoft entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN, which delineated their rights applicable to their use of the number resources. In summary, this case's outcome was that it was in all parties interests to deal only with those rights that the Internet number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated were available to the address holder, as opposed to a sale "free and clear" as has been otherwise suggested. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 14:14:24 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:14:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:32 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> >>> To an extent, this has been acknowledged by the US courts as they've recognized the exclusive rights of a seller to transfer IP addresses as an asset. >> >> Benson - >> >> ?Please provide a citation for the above, because I am not aware >> ?of any court ruling to this effect. ?The only findings that I am >> ?aware of are rulings that support the sale of an address holders >> ?rights in an address block in a manner that does not interfere with >> ?ARIN and ARIN community's rights with respect to the address block. > > For the purposes of saving some time (since everyone is going to > go looking for much of the same information), let me outline the > Nortel/MSFT outcome Why don't we just go back to the court documents and reference where each have said 'while we don't necessarily need to deal with ARIN' and of course the Kremens declaration. The recent change of tone sets the stage for either grandiose posturing (backed by the accumulation of our fees to the tune of $30M in reserves) or for a confrontation, again backed by reserves. I don't believe that the community supports this kind of activity against the legacy address markets myself. Best, -M< From mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 7 14:31:23 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:31:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2061A2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20622AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > > [Milton L Mueller] That's an interesting response. So ARIN will > > improvise yet another version of the LRSA? > > Milton - > > As noted in my earlier response: any LRSA will require compliance with > ARIN policies (already noted as a requirement in the court document.) > I'll take that as a "Yes." "any LRSA" seems to imply multiple versions. From matthew at matthew.at Wed Dec 7 14:21:10 2011 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:21:10 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar in.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:32 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and > interests "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection > with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended > sale and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel > and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the > addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement > (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read > "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA > and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to > this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". Microsoft > entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN, > which delineated their rights applicable to their use of the number > resources. In summary, this case's outcome was that it was in all > parties interests to deal only with those rights that the Internet > number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated were available > to the address holder, as opposed to a sale "free and clear" as has > been otherwise suggested. > > Sure, but just as is suggested by footnote 9 (iirc) in the current case, the "need" requirements specified by policy may not have fully applied. (We don't know, of course, because the needs justification that may or may not have been provided by Microsoft in that case isn't part of the transparency provided by ARIN to the public.) I'd sign an LRSA too if I could dictate all the exceptions to policy I'd like to take. Matthew Kaufman Sent from my iPad From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 14:49:55 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:49:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <13375A1E35E34B0A9AB5DAEC915DA8CE@MPC> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY "CAMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk><49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0 CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk><"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video><63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC><08 DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com><2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3 BAC2C306@queuefull.net><9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <13375A1E35E34B0A9AB5DAEC915DA8CE@MPC> Message-ID: <9A92DE35-8040-4B82-9FD7-0FBC9323328A@arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > In the MS/Nortel deal I will note the judge said that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer addresses which were not registered to Nortel, but in fact were allocated to their bankrupt prior acquisitions. The order that was actually approved by the judge does indeed indicate that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer its address holdings. Note that ARIN actually believes the same thing (no party other than the address holder can initiate a transfer of number resources). This similar language is actually in the LRSA version 3.0 that ARIN recently put out for community consultation. However, the Nortel court order was only approved after being amended to further read: "Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?). No further consents or approvals are required for the Seller to enter into the Agreement, to transfer the Seller?s Rights in the Internet Numbers to the Purchaser or to consummate the Transaction other than entry of this Order and as set forth in the Agreement." > Nowhere in the deal was there language stating that Nortel had that right only due to after-the-fact 8.2 transfers. Correct. The order instead stated that the recipient has entered into an LRSA with ARIN and that no further consents or approvals are required. > Rather it appears he accepted the chain of custody documents showing that Nortel acquired the exclusive rights to those addresses without regard to ARIN transfer policies. > Thus the judge accepted that the address rights flowed from one company to another without any regard to ARIN policies. Again, the judge approved the transfer of rights in the number resources from one company to another *only after affirming that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement with ARIN*. > I find this significant. Indeed, particularly when considering the actual text in the approved order. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 15:01:19 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 20:01:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Why don't we just go back to the court documents and reference where > each have said 'while we don't necessarily need to deal with ARIN' Incorrect. In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with affirmation that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement with ARIN. See prior posting to Mike for the specific references. In Kremen, the Court cited as fact in its Order ARIN's representations: ?All U.S., Canadian and other IP resources (a portion of ARIN's geographical service area) are administered in a public trust by ARIN pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. government. Because IP address space is finite and a public trust, IP resources are allocated to registrants subject to contractual terms and ARIN's policies. IP resources are allocated by ARIN pursuant to the terms of a services agreement, which obligates registrants to comply with ARIN's Internet Protocol address space allocation and assignment guidelines? IP resources may be only transferred from one entity to another pursuant to the terms of ARIN's Guidelines for Transferring Internet Protocol (IP) Space? and subject to ARIN's Transfer Policy?Among other things, the Guidelines provide that IP resources are non-transferable, may not be sold or assigned and may only be transferred upon ARIN's approval of a formal transfer request.? FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 15:35:10 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 20:35:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <8BE32B3F523C46CF805C1D60CA6D96D0@MPC> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY "CAMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com><"F55FF9C4F DB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk><49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CE B30EEFF21CC2"@Skyhawk><"4870FA880F304F 2FA7BE283037BD7B1D"@video><63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1 @MPC><08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com><2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-A DDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net><9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net><241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.a rin.net><13375A1E35E34B0A9AB5DAEC915DA8CE@MPC> <9A92DE35-8040-4B82-9FD7-0FBC9323328A@arin.n et> <8BE32B3F523C46CF805C1D60CA6D96D0@MPC> Message-ID: <4890D9A7-CA9A-4980-B182-09D56FF75A00@arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> "Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?). >> No further consents or approvals are required for the Seller to enter into the Agreement, to transfer the Seller?s Rights in the Internet Numbers to the Purchaser or to consummate the Transaction other than entry of this Order and as set forth in the Agreement." > > Precisely correct, so that the transfer of address rights from Nortel's prior acquisitions to the bankrupt Nortel happened *without* any ARIN transfer. The LRSA referred to the final 8.3 transfer. > Shouldn't the judge have found that Nortel did *not* have the exclusive right to transfer addresses not registered to it without first processing an ARIN 8.2 transfer, and then required an LRSA for the subsequent transfer to Microsoft? The judge approved what the parties (Nortel, Microsoft) brought to him. ARIN had objected to the original draft, and decided the that revised draft had addressed our concerns by requiring the recipient to comply with the transfer policies and insuring that the resources where under a registration services agreement. > Rather it appears he accepted the chain of custody documents showing that Nortel acquired the exclusive rights to those addresses without regard to ARIN transfer policies. >> Thus the judge accepted that the address rights flowed from one company to another without any regard to ARIN policies. > >> Again, the judge approved the transfer of rights in the number resources > from one company to another *only after affirming that the recipient had > entered into a registration services agreement with ARIN*. > > We are talking here about two transfers, from Nortel's predecessor, let's just call them Bay Networks, to Nortel, and the second, from Nortel to Microsoft. > How did Nortel get the right to transfer Bay Network's addresses without first having ARIN process an 8.2 transfer? It is not uncommon for parties to come to us with out of date registration records due to merger and acquisition activity. We review the legal docs and update the registration in accordance with NRPM 8.2. In this situation, after review of the documentation in the case, we concurred that NNI was the indeed legitimate successor address holder for the specified resources and that we would consider entries for predecessor organizations as NNI for purposes of the transfer request. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 15:47:39 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 20:47:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <833EC980-67A5-480B-905A-AF5228C8AC90@arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I'd sign an LRSA too if I could dictate all the exceptions to policy I'd like to take. Matt - Alas, all RSA's require compliance to community-developed Internet address policies in the region... Why wouldn't you just submit the exceptions that you seek as policy proposals? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 16:10:25 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:10:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> Why don't we just go back to the court documents and reference where >> each have said 'while we don't necessarily need to deal with ARIN' > > Incorrect. > > In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with affirmation > that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement > with ARIN. ?See prior posting to Mike for the specific references. John, I encourage you to provide a cite to a specific line in the document that affirms your statement. We can agree to disagree for now. > > In Kremen, the Court cited as fact in its Order ARIN's representations: > [ clip ] In Kremens, I was also talking about where ARIN disclaimed authority over legacy addresses. YMMV. Best, -M< From bensons at queuefull.net Wed Dec 7 16:12:33 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:12:33 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar in.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <6EBA0F84-4A24-4558-9AA1-DCF6FFA35459@queuefull.net> Hi, John. Thanks for your summary. I was going to ask for ARIN's view based on counsel, for comparison and reference, on the grounds that I'm not a lawyer etc. May I assume that your summary fits that description? The citation that you requested is from the Nortel-Microsoft sale. I found the documents at http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx?RelatedID=291990 in case somebody wants to read for themselves. The text that I'm interpreting [1] is finding G on the 4th page of the final order dated 4/26/2011. It says: "The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers." To my knowledge, the order doesn't say whether an agreement with ARIN was required, merely that one existed. Nor does it, to my knowledge, elaborate on the underlying philosophical source of these rights. This has all been discussed on PPML already. If the Borders transaction updates any of this materially, then the community should be made aware, and I would appreciate citations. For that matter, I would appreciate clarification of ARIN's "objection" in the Nortel transaction. I have not found such a document in the legal record, and would ask for a reference if one can be given. Your summary notwithstanding, the intent of my original comment seems clear. The bankruptcy court has recognized a bundle of rights in IPv4 addresses as an asset. Indeed, under Title 11 Section 363, the court implicitly recognized this as a form of property. It was recognized explicitly as property in the purchase agreement. I do recognize the nuance that your summary described, and see how my comment could be more accurate if worded differently. You'll please forgive me - did I mention that I'm not a lawyer? - for using casual language and shorthand in my message. I believe the correct text would have been "exclusive rights of a seller to transfer their rights in IP addresses" or something of that nature. But just as real property rights are transferred and yet referred to casually as "land" or a "house" etc, or as intellectual property rights are transferred and yet referred to as a "book" or a "song", I found it convenient to refer to the bundle of rights associated with an IP address block as simply "IP addresses". I will probably do so again in the future, but I trust that we're all intelligent enough to understand. Cheers, -Benson [2] 1 - Again I would remind everybody that I'm not a lawyer. I'm assured by people in the lawyering business that legalese is a foreign language, in which a common phrase might be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it says, up is down, good is bad, cats and dogs sleeping together, etc. 2 - I, Benson Schliesser, am an employee of Cisco Systems; however, opinions expressed in this email are my own views and not those of Cisco Systems or anybody else. On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:32 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> >>> To an extent, this has been acknowledged by the US courts as they've recognized the exclusive rights of a seller to transfer IP addresses as an asset. >> >> Benson - >> >> Please provide a citation for the above, because I am not aware >> of any court ruling to this effect. The only findings that I am >> aware of are rulings that support the sale of an address holders >> rights in an address block in a manner that does not interfere with >> ARIN and ARIN community's rights with respect to the address block. > > For the purposes of saving some time (since everyone is going to > go looking for much of the same information), let me outline the > Nortel/MSFT outcome: > > To be clear, Nortel did transfer its rights of certain address > registrations to Microsoft. Rights can indeed be treated as an > asset of an estate (e.g. airspace rights, mining rights, license > rights) but that does not mean that the underlying item is a form > of "free and clear" property, only that something (often limited in > nature) has been transferred. > > The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and > interests "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection > with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended > sale and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel > and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the > addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement > (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read > "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA > and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to > this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". Microsoft > entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN, > which delineated their rights applicable to their use of the number > resources. In summary, this case's outcome was that it was in all > parties interests to deal only with those rights that the Internet > number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated were available > to the address holder, as opposed to a sale "free and clear" as has > been otherwise suggested. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 16:38:24 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:38:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.arin.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >>> Why don't we just go back to the court documents and reference where >>> each have said 'while we don't necessarily need to deal with ARIN' >> >> Incorrect. >> >> In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with affirmation >> that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement >> with ARIN. See prior posting to Mike for the specific references. > > John, > > I encourage you to provide a cite to a specific line in the document > that affirms your statement. We can agree to disagree for now. Martin - The court documents I cited are part of the public file, and therefore can be readily confirmed by anyone. However, for avoidance of doubt, please find directions for access and references to the nearest page. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx?RelatedID=290578 - All Documents are all under Docket # 5252. --- In Document A (Amended Purchase Agreement), top of page 14 - "SECTION 3.5 LRSA. The Purchaser has, or prior to the date of the hearing to consider and approve the Sale Order will have, entered into the LRSA. Other than entry into the LRSA, no Consent from ARIN or any other regional internet registry is required for the purchase of Seller?s Rights hereunder. " --- In Document A (Amended Purchase Agreement), botton of page 23 - "SECTION 7.2 Conditions to Seller?s Obligation. 7.2.1 The Seller?s obligation to effect the Closing shall be subject to the fulfillment (or express written waiver by the Seller), at or prior to the Closing, of each of the following conditions: ... (e) LRSA. Purchaser shall have entered into the LRSA with ARIN." --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), bottom of page 4 - " I. Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?)." --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), top of page 5 - "K. The Purchaser would not have entered into the Agreement and would not consummate the Transaction if the sale, transfer and assignment of the Seller?s Rights in and to the Internet Numbers to the Purchaser was not free and clear of all Interests, pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, subject to the terms of the LRSA. " --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), middle of page 8 - "5. For the avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and the Purchaser?s rights in the Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA." From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 16:46:20 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:46:20 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>>> Why don't we just go back to the court documents and reference where >>>> each have said 'while we don't necessarily need to deal with ARIN' >>> >>> Incorrect. >>> >>> In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with affirmation >>> that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement >>> with ARIN. ?See prior posting to Mike for the specific references. >> >> John, >> >> I encourage you to provide a cite to a specific line in the document >> that affirms your statement. We can agree to disagree for now. > > Martin - > > ? The court documents I cited are part of the public file, and therefore > ? can be readily confirmed by anyone. ?However, for avoidance of doubt, > ? please find directions for access and references to the nearest page. > John, Thanks, now I know that you too know where they are. :-) I asked you to take the time to backup your reference with a cite so I think we now have established that you can in fact do that if you so choose. Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 16:59:16 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:59:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Thanks, now I know that you too know where they are. :-) I asked you > to take the time to backup your reference with a cite so I think we > now have established that you can in fact do that if you so choose. Martin - I said "In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with affirmation that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement with ARIN. " You said: "I encourage you to provide a cite to a specific line in the document that affirms your statement." The cite is: --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), bottom of page 4 - " I. Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?)." and it is the 19th written line on that page. If you have any other statements that you question, or need help searching the text, please let me know, either publicly or privately. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 17:06:34 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:06:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <6EBA0F84-4A24-4558-9AA1-DCF6FFA35459@queuefull.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <6EBA0F84-4A24-4558-9AA1-DCF6FFA35459@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > Your summary notwithstanding, the intent of my original comment seems clear. The bankruptcy court has recognized a bundle of rights in IPv4 addresses as an asset. Indeed, under Title 11 Section 363, the court implicitly recognized this as a form of property. It was recognized explicitly as property in the purchase agreement. All correct. That such rights exist to a given block of IP addresses and can be disposed as property of the estate does not preclude that the community also has certain rights to the same address block, nor does it mean that the address block itself is some form of freehold property. > I do recognize the nuance that your summary described, and see how my comment could be more accurate if worded differently. You'll please forgive me - did I mention that I'm not a lawyer? - for using casual language and shorthand in my message. I believe the correct text would have been "exclusive rights of a seller to transfer their rights in IP addresses" or something of that nature. But just as real property rights are transferred and yet referred to casually as "land" or a "house" etc, or as intellectual property rights are transferred and yet referred to as a "book" or a "song", I found it convenient to refer to the bundle of rights associated with an IP address block as simply "IP addresses". I will probably do so again in the future, but I trust that we're all intelligent enough to understand. Perfectly understandable. You should recognize that my responses will be based on ARIN's view that address holders do have certain rights (such as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space within the ARIN registry database as well as the exclusive right to transfer the registration of the space), but that those rights intersect other rights with respect to the same registrations. The policies adopted in the region are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence the intersection of these rights. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From info at arin.net Wed Dec 7 17:09:56 2011 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:09:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2011 In-Reply-To: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net> References: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net> Message-ID: <4EDFE434.5010305@arin.net> > The AC abandoned proposal 158. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision > may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this proposal would > be the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be > five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. The deadline for petitions is 14 December 2011. The AC's draft minutes of their 16 November 2011 meeting are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html The AC provided the following statement regarding proposal 158: "After discussing prop-158 the AC has come to the conclusion that the underlying issue is one of staff interpretation of existing policy and based on community feedback has chosen to abandon this proposal rather than working further on this aspect of IPv4 policy. The shepherds would like to point out that further discussion regarding ARIN's role in address aggregation may be warranted." Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) On 11/22/11 1:13 PM, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 16 November 2011 and made > decisions about several draft policies and proposals. > > The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for > adoption: > > ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers > ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers > ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion > IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA > ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified > Transfer > > The AC provided a statement about 2011-1: > ##### > On Wednesday, November 16th 2011 the ARIN Advisory Council voted to > send 2011-1 to the Board of Trustees for review and implementation. > The vote to do so was not unanimous and in light of spirited community > debate during the last call process it was thought best to amplify its > statement to the Community regarding why this action was taken. This > decision hinged on the following points: > > * Broad support for a policy allowing those with addresses to transfer > them inter-regionally, > > * Incremental changes to the policy over two Public Policy Meetings, > > * Some changes to the policy after the last Public Policy Meeting to > incorporate feedback received there, > > * Advice from Counsel that ARIN is in a far better position with such > a policy in place than without, > > * Statement from the CEO that there are technical details to support > this policy that will take the better part of a year to implement. > > 2011-1 may not represent the final word in specified transfer policy. > We encourage the community to review the policy and we welcome > subsequent policy proposals to modify the NRPM to reflect the > community's more specific desires and operational experience. > > For complete objectivity, the AC members voting in the minority on > this Draft Policy should have an opportunity to express their views. > > Dissenting Viewpoint of the of AC: > The members of the AC that opposed the motion did so for several > reasons. Firstly, there was no vote on any version of policy text for > 2011-1 at the last PPM in Philadelphia. Secondly, there were strong > objections in the community to the text that was presented at last > call with approximately 50% of those that commented on the matter on > PPML in opposition. Finally, some AC members felt that the changes > made to the policy text as it entered last call were too drastic to > not go before the community at another PPM. Those dissenting felt that > the matter should remain on the docket for further work. > ##### > > The following draft policy remains on the AC's docket (a motion to send > to last call was unsuccessful): > > ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement > > The AC abandoned the following proposal: > > ARIN-prop-158 Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy > > A statement from the AC will be forthcoming regarding the abandonment > of this proposal. > > The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort > and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. > > The AC abandoned proposal 158. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision > may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this proposal would > be the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be > five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. > For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see > PDP Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 17:12:39 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:12:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> Thanks, now I know that ?you too know where they are. :-) I asked you >> to take the time to backup your reference with a cite so I think we >> now have established that you can in fact do that if you so choose. > > Martin - > > I said "In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with > affirmation that the recipient had entered into a registration services > agreement with ARIN. " > [ clip ] > > --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), bottom of page 4 - > " I. Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?)." > > and it is the 19th written line on that page. ?If you have any other > statements that you question, or need help searching the text, please > let me know, either publicly or privately. I think we're still at "polite disagreement". As Benson noted, I'll point out too that neither of us are lawyers. It does not actually say what you are representing. In context, what transpired in Nortel is that ARIN worked out an agreement and it was codified in the documents voluntarily. Much like Borders, Nortel was based in a US bankruptcy court. The Borders statement that Borders had believed that it wasn't necessary to obtain ARIN's approval would apply to the Nortel proceeding as well. Your response is out of context and as far as I can discern, not directly citeable, at least not to people who prefer to be clear and concise in their responses. There's pretty much no way to intimate what you are stating. Until there's something useful to respond to, I think this thread is pretty much beaten to death. Best! -M< From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 17:22:02 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:22:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > >>> Full sentence: >>> "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to authorize >>> the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN, the >>> IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN's consent and the proposed order >>> incorporates various protections of ARIN's rights, which moots any need >>> to consider any of these issues." >> >> Sounds like pretty reasonable wording to me. In the first part they don't concede anything, just in case something bizarre happened where they did want to try to proceed without ARIN. ?In the second they avoid all that mess by opting to make sure they get ARIN's approval for the transaction regardless (which is pretty sensible in preserving the value of the assets). ?If they didn't put in the "While the Debtors believe..." part it'd probably be alot tougher for them to try to make a case to proceed without ARIN, IF they felt they needed to do so for some reason. By putting that in, it simply looks like their trying to preserve their options. >> I was just thinking and in this context it was about how to additional monetize IPv4 assets. At this point I'd be looking at _all_ bankruptcy proceedings to make sure that nothing has been lost in "registration" and insuring that parties knew about lost v4 assets and perhaps conducting business on a finders fee basis. It sort of dawned on me that this would apply to non-legacy space for transfer as well, wouldn't it? I mean, if you can sell legacy assets without interference from ARIN for the most part, can't you also transfer non-legacy assets without too much interference from ARIN? While there is an agreement (and I'll sign up for your IANAL disclaimer as well and I hope other non lawyers may too), but there seems to be a distinct possibility that this has far more implications than just legacy addresses, at least in bankruptcy. Best, -M< From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 7 17:26:06 2011 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:26:06 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDEFB@MAIL1.polartel.local> Done > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:22 PM > To: Benson Schliesser > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Benson Schliesser > wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > > > >>> Full sentence: > >>> "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to > authorize > >>> the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN, > the > >>> IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN's consent and the proposed order > >>> incorporates various protections of ARIN's rights, which moots any > need > >>> to consider any of these issues." > >> > >> Sounds like pretty reasonable wording to me. In the first part they > don't concede anything, just in case something bizarre happened where they > did want to try to proceed without ARIN. ?In the second they avoid all > that mess by opting to make sure they get ARIN's approval for the > transaction regardless (which is pretty sensible in preserving the value > of the assets). ?If they didn't put in the "While the Debtors believe..." > part it'd probably be alot tougher for them to try to make a case to > proceed without ARIN, IF they felt they needed to do so for some reason. > By putting that in, it simply looks like their trying to preserve their > options. > >> > > > I was just thinking and in this context it was about how to additional > monetize IPv4 assets. At this point I'd be looking at _all_ bankruptcy > proceedings to make sure that nothing has been lost in "registration" > and insuring that parties knew about lost v4 assets and perhaps > conducting business on a finders fee basis. It sort of dawned on me > that this would apply to non-legacy space for transfer as well, > wouldn't it? I mean, if you can sell legacy assets without > interference from ARIN for the most part, can't you also transfer > non-legacy assets without too much interference from ARIN? While there > is an agreement (and I'll sign up for your IANAL disclaimer as well > and I hope other non lawyers may too), but there seems to be a > distinct possibility that this has far more implications than just > legacy addresses, at least in bankruptcy. > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 7 17:28:35 2011 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:28:35 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDEFB@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDEFB@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDEFC@MAIL1.polartel.local> Oops, cross click.. sorry list.. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:26 PM > To: 'Martin Hannigan'; Benson Schliesser > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block > > Done > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:22 PM > > To: Benson Schliesser > > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net) > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Benson Schliesser > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > > > > > >>> Full sentence: > > >>> "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to > > authorize > > >>> the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN, > > the > > >>> IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN's consent and the proposed > order > > >>> incorporates various protections of ARIN's rights, which moots any > > need > > >>> to consider any of these issues." > > >> > > >> Sounds like pretty reasonable wording to me. In the first part they > > don't concede anything, just in case something bizarre happened where > they > > did want to try to proceed without ARIN. ?In the second they avoid all > > that mess by opting to make sure they get ARIN's approval for the > > transaction regardless (which is pretty sensible in preserving the value > > of the assets). ?If they didn't put in the "While the Debtors > believe..." > > part it'd probably be alot tougher for them to try to make a case to > > proceed without ARIN, IF they felt they needed to do so for some reason. > > By putting that in, it simply looks like their trying to preserve their > > options. > > >> > > > > > > I was just thinking and in this context it was about how to additional > > monetize IPv4 assets. At this point I'd be looking at _all_ bankruptcy > > proceedings to make sure that nothing has been lost in "registration" > > and insuring that parties knew about lost v4 assets and perhaps > > conducting business on a finders fee basis. It sort of dawned on me > > that this would apply to non-legacy space for transfer as well, > > wouldn't it? I mean, if you can sell legacy assets without > > interference from ARIN for the most part, can't you also transfer > > non-legacy assets without too much interference from ARIN? While there > > is an agreement (and I'll sign up for your IANAL disclaimer as well > > and I hope other non lawyers may too), but there seems to be a > > distinct possibility that this has far more implications than just > > legacy addresses, at least in bankruptcy. > > > > Best, > > > > -M< > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 7 17:24:47 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:24:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net><4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> Message-ID: <3CF8950B-A626-4975-92E0-F93378F46FA1@delong.com> On Dec 7, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > >> ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of >> addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations >> retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid >> registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a >> unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense >> of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN >> or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the >> internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action >> against party B (derouting). > > > On the other hand, it's probably best for everyone involved if the above scenario is avoided. One thing to reclaim space that has been "high jacked", another thing to reclaim it from organizations who do have some reasonable non-arbitrary basis for believing they have a legitimate claim to such space....such as a Bankruptcy Court approving said transfer or a contract from the entity which is legitimately listed as holder of that space in the registry. > In such a case, it is unlikely that they would be unable to complete a section 8 transfer with ARIN. Absent completion of such a transfer, IMHO, it is indistinguishable from hijacking. It is an organization with no policy basis for having the addresses using addresses that were registered to a separate organization. That's pretty much the definition of hijacking. > In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far. Agreed. I think ARIN and current policy have done a good job of that. There are no documented cases that I am aware of where this has failed so far. > Introducing degrees of uncertainty, even if it was technically within the bounds of policy....probably doesn't serve anyone's interests well. When it comes to legacy addresses, there is much uncertainty until there is a contract with the RIR. Reclamation of blocks in questionable status and no longer under control of the registrant is, frankly, one way to reduce the uncertainty. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 17:30:17 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:30:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> I said "In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with >> affirmation that the recipient had entered into a registration services >> agreement with ARIN. " >> --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), bottom of page 4 - >> " I. Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?)." >> > ... > It does not actually say what you are representing. ... Your response > is out of context and as far as I can discern, not directly citeable, > at least not to people who prefer to be clear and concise in their > responses. There's pretty much no way to intimate what you are stating. The original Proposed Order lacked the statement. The revised one has the statement. The Revised Proposed Order was approved by the court, and it contain the representation that the recipient entered into an registration services agreement with ARIN. All of the above are actual facts in the record. I guess the nuance is that other proposed orders could theoretically have been approved without the affirmation (i.e. the judge did not "order" entry into the LRSA, thus making it the "only" way forward); that is certainly the case, but ARIN would not have withdrawn its objection under such circumstances. The only way for the sale to proceed smoothly was with the affirmation hat the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement with ARIN. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Dec 7 17:16:44 2011 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:16:44 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D18347D-13C0-4594-A81A-DFD6FD138A08@netconsonance.com> On Dec 7, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Thanks, now I know that you too know where they are. :-) I asked you > to take the time to backup your reference with a cite so I think we > now have established that you can in fact do that if you so choose. Marty, this comes across as extremely crass. You are generally more intelligent than this. Can we stop having discussions that sound like schoolyard harassment "Prove it! Prove it!" and focus on the actual issues raised. Asking someone to go get you the specific lines from a public document that anyone can read is fairly amateur. Can we raise the conversation level? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 17:59:39 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:59:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <6856A023-6FAF-4DB1-AF7F-3F6AB157A347@corp.arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I was just thinking and in this context it was about how to additional > monetize IPv4 assets. At this point I'd be looking at _all_ bankruptcy > proceedings to make sure that nothing has been lost in "registration" > and insuring that parties knew about lost v4 assets and perhaps > conducting business on a finders fee basis. It sort of dawned on me > that this would apply to non-legacy space for transfer as well, > wouldn't it? There are parties doing this; several of them are registered as facilitators under STLS. As I noted earlier, we're getting an increasing number of parties who are actively seeking ARIN out and incorporating the appropriate language in their sale documents. > I mean, if you can sell legacy assets without > interference from ARIN for the most part, can't you also transfer > non-legacy assets without too much interference from ARIN? Specified transfers are available per NRPM 8.3 for any IPv4 address space in the region, whether allocated directly by ARIN or legacy. > While there is an agreement (and I'll sign up for your IANAL disclaimer > as welland I hope other non lawyers may too), but there seems to be a > distinct possibility that this has far more implications than just > legacy addresses, at least in bankruptcy. You may be seeing something therein which eludes the rest of us; it appears that the bankruptcy system is becoming quite aware of appropriate handling of IP address blocks, even to the point of ARIN now routine getting notice in advance of various hearings. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bensons at queuefull.net Wed Dec 7 18:09:56 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:09:56 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > [...] At this point I'd be looking at _all_ bankruptcy > proceedings to make sure that nothing has been lost in "registration" > and insuring that parties knew about lost v4 assets and perhaps > conducting business on a finders fee basis. It sort of dawned on me > that this would apply to non-legacy space for transfer as well, > wouldn't it? I mean, if you can sell legacy assets without > interference from ARIN for the most part, can't you also transfer > non-legacy assets without too much interference from ARIN? While there > is an agreement (and I'll sign up for your IANAL disclaimer as well > and I hope other non lawyers may too), but there seems to be a > distinct possibility that this has far more implications than just > legacy addresses, at least in bankruptcy. I'm not a lawyer, so the final answer is: I don't know. But what I *suspect* is that a RSA at least gives ARIN the legal standing required to intervene. The standard RSA includes language that would seem to deal with the situation you've described, and it would be up to the court to decide if the RSA contract preempts other creditors etc in disposing of the asset. Based on the language, I'd guess that the usual result would be favorable to ARIN. Based on this same logic, I also suspect that ARIN could not have objected in the Nortel case because they didn't have standing at the time. I'm hopeful that John will clarify this point, as I requested in my previous email. Cheers, -Benson --- Disclaimers: 1. I am not a lawyer, and nothing in this message should be construed as advice. 2. I, Benson Schliesser, am an employee of Cisco Systems; however, opinions expressed in this email are my own views and not those of Cisco Systems or anybody else. From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Dec 7 18:12:44 2011 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:12:44 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I think we're still at "polite disagreement". As Benson noted, I'll > point out too that neither of us are lawyers. You know, somehow I suspect that given John's current working role he has been advised often and repeatedly by lawyers on this matter. I also doubt that you have been as often as he has. > It does not actually say what you are representing. In context, what *nasty backtalk snipped* Marty, I find it downright hilarious that you start with "not a lawyer" and then proceed to talk down to John about exactly what the text means. If you want to get a lawyer to tell us why this text doesn't suffice, please do so. But don't waste our time with your legal analysis. For the record: I've spent enough time being advised by lawyers on issues to recognize that what you are trying to interpret is not necessarily how the court interprets things. This is why lawyers are specialists and highly paid. I don't let lawyer's have an enable prompt on my router, but I also don't tell them how to read legal documents. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 18:28:06 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:28:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > [ clip ] > > Based on this same logic, I also suspect that ARIN could not have objected in the Nortel case because they didn't have standing at the time. I'm hopeful that John will clarify this point, as I requested in my previous email. > I don't see why ARIN would not be at a disadvantage in either, to be honest. The Borders documents make it clear that they are. You also don't have to be a lawyer to understand that no one is going to buy addresses for almost $1M or transfer a deposit without some assurances that ARIN won't be able to later take them away. Best, -M< From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Dec 7 18:31:40 2011 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:31:40 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <4EDFF75C.2000107@sprunk.org> On 07-Dec-11 17:28, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> Based on this same logic, I also suspect that ARIN could not have objected in the Nortel case because they didn't have standing at the time. I'm hopeful that John will clarify this point, as I requested in my previous email. > I don't see why ARIN would not be at a disadvantage in either, to be honest. The Borders documents make it clear that they are. > > You also don't have to be a lawyer to understand that no one is going to buy addresses for almost $1M or transfer a deposit without some assurances that ARIN won't be able to later take them away. ... and those assurances are provided by the LRSA the buyer signs, not by the bankruptcy court. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2312 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 18:35:15 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:35:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <4EDFF75C.2000107@sprunk.org> References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <4EDFF75C.2000107@sprunk.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 07-Dec-11 17:28, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >>> Based on this same logic, I also suspect that ARIN could not have objected in the Nortel case because they didn't have standing at the time. I'm hopeful that John will clarify this point, as I requested in my previous email. >> I don't see why ARIN would not be at a disadvantage in either, to be honest. The Borders documents make it clear that they are. >> >> You also don't have to be a lawyer to understand that no one is going to buy addresses for almost $1M or transfer a deposit without some assurances that ARIN won't be able to later take them away. > > ... and those assurances are provided by the LRSA the buyer signs, not > by the bankruptcy court. I don't doubt it. But I do doubt that "all" ARIN policies are being enforced or interpreted as they may with you or I outside of such a proceeding. Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 18:50:52 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 23:50:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <4EDFF75C.2000107@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <5EE88B4E-B75D-436F-AA3A-6AF6DC2F539B@corp.arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 07-Dec-11 17:28, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> ... >>> You also don't have to be a lawyer to understand that no one is going to buy addresses for almost $1M or transfer a deposit without some assurances that ARIN won't be able to later take them away. >> >> ... and those assurances are provided by the LRSA the buyer signs, not >> by the bankruptcy court. > > I don't doubt it. But I do doubt that "all" ARIN policies are being > enforced or interpreted as they may with you or I outside of such a > proceeding. All of ARIN's policies are enforced to all parties. Martin is correct that both the current RSA and LRSA both have reclamation language which may concern parties receiving resources obtained by specific transfer. The ARIN community should realize as a practical matter that resource reclamation based on purely on future policy considerations (as opposed to fraud, for example) pretty much has to be precluded for parties to have any certainty in their ability to obtain resources via specified transfer. The revised LRSA 3.0 which was just put to consultation is much better in this area and we intend to refresh the standard RSA to improve its language as well. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 18:57:40 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:57:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: <2D18347D-13C0-4594-A81A-DFD6FD138A08@netconsonance.com> References: <2D18347D-13C0-4594-A81A-DFD6FD138A08@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: Thanks, but matter if factness shouldn't be interpreted as anything but. Best, Martin On Dec 7, 2011 5:16 PM, "Jo Rhett" wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Thanks, now I know that you too know where they are. :-) I asked you > > to take the time to backup your reference with a cite so I think we > > now have established that you can in fact do that if you so choose. > > > Marty, this comes across as extremely crass. You are generally more > intelligent than this. Can we stop having discussions that sound like > schoolyard harassment "Prove it! Prove it!" and focus on the actual issues > raised. Asking someone to go get you the specific lines from a public > document that anyone can read is fairly amateur. Can we raise the > conversation level? > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and > other randomness > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Dec 7 19:00:23 2011 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:00:23 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block Was: Re: References to NNI court documents In-Reply-To: References: <2D18347D-13C0-4594-A81A-DFD6FD138A08@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: Asking someone to show the line, then saying yeah I just wanted to make sure you could? is childlike. On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Thanks, but matter if factness shouldn't be interpreted as anything but. > > Best, > > Martin > > On Dec 7, 2011 5:16 PM, "Jo Rhett" wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Thanks, now I know that you too know where they are. :-) I asked you > > to take the time to backup your reference with a cite so I think we > > now have established that you can in fact do that if you so choose. > > > Marty, this comes across as extremely crass. You are generally more intelligent than this. Can we stop having discussions that sound like schoolyard harassment "Prove it! Prove it!" and focus on the actual issues raised. Asking someone to go get you the specific lines from a public document that anyone can read is fairly amateur. Can we raise the conversation level? > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness > -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bensons at queuefull.net Wed Dec 7 19:04:52 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:04:52 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar > <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <6EBA0F84-4A24-4558-9AA1-DCF6FFA35459@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <72070624-5867-4AB8-8E63-E14E6FBB34C0@queuefull.net> Hi, John. On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > [...] You should recognize that my responses will > be based on ARIN's view I understand that you must respond on ARIN's behalf. And, believe it or not, I don't usually hold it against you. :) I do, however, worry about the conflation of ARIN, the ARIN membership, the PPML community, and the Internet community. This is why I advocate the way I do - and I hope you won't hold that against me. ;) > that address holders do have certain rights (such > as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space within the > ARIN registry database as well as the exclusive right to transfer the > registration of the space), but that those rights intersect other rights > with respect to the same registrations. The policies adopted in the > region are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence > the intersection of these rights. This mostly seems reasonable. All property rights under the law have limits. But a few issues come to mind... I'll ignore the more argumentative questions for now, and just focus on a single issue that might actually influence current policy: If the seller has the exclusive right to transfer (a given block), then how could another party (such as ARIN) legally "reclaim" the addresses? Wouldn't the seller have to "transfer" them to ARIN in this case? Thanks, -Benson From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 7 19:14:50 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:14:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <72070624-5867-4AB8-8E63-E14E6FBB34C0@queuefull.net> References: <"CAMDXq5MHY Cs0Yg1D0yJ9GptA+Kh8n4pc8y2vrp655AWfz-U=TQ"@mail.gmail.com> <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <6EBA0F84-4A24-4558-9AA1-DCF6FFA35459@queuefull.net> <72070624-5867-4AB8-8E63-E14E6FBB34C0@queuefull.net> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> that address holders do have certain rights (such >> as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space within the >> ARIN registry database as well as the exclusive right to transfer the >> registration of the space), but that those rights intersect other rights >> with respect to the same registrations. The policies adopted in the >> region are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence >> the intersection of these rights. > > This mostly seems reasonable. All property rights under the law have limits. But a few issues come to mind... I'll ignore the more argumentative questions for now, and just focus on a single issue that might actually influence current policy: If the seller has the exclusive right to transfer (a given block), then how could another party (such as ARIN) legally "reclaim" the addresses? Wouldn't the seller have to "transfer" them to ARIN in this case? If seller agreed by contract (i.e. per registration services agreement) to reclamation under certain circumstances. This is specifically why (as was noted in an earlier thread) we do have to call out those rights clearly in the registration services agreements. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From matthew at matthew.at Wed Dec 7 22:44:45 2011 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 19:44:45 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: References: <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar in.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4EE032AD.5000407@matthew.at> On 12/7/2011 11:21 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:32 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> >> The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and >> interests "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection >> with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended >> sale and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel >> and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the >> addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement >> (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read >> "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA >> and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to >> this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". Microsoft >> entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN, >> which delineated their rights applicable to their use of the number >> resources. In summary, this case's outcome was that it was in all >> parties interests to deal only with those rights that the Internet >> number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated were available >> to the address holder, as opposed to a sale "free and clear" as has >> been otherwise suggested. >> >> > Sure, but just as is suggested by footnote 9 (iirc) in the current case, the "need" requirements specified by policy may not have fully applied. (We don't know, of course, because the needs justification that may or may not have been provided by Microsoft in that case isn't part of the transparency provided by ARIN to the public.) > To elaborate, I refer specifically to Footnote 9 from the Motion for Order "9 This will likely entail ARIN?s approval of Cerner based on a reasonable demonstration of a need for the addresses (under a standard that is more liberal than their policy for transfer of non-legacy numbers)." I'm not sure where in the NRPM to find a policy that permits a holder of legacy resources to transfer to a recipient who, while they are signing a form of LRSA, is allowed to use a "more liberal" policy than 8.3's "which they can justify under current ARIN policies" (either a 3 or 12 month window of need, depending on whether Cerner is an end user or ISP and/or has previously received resources that are effectively utilized. Of course, as I pointed out above, just like the Microsoft-as-recipient transfer that was discussed previously, we will never know what needs justification was or will be provided, and if a standard "more liberal than their policy for transfer of non-legacy numbers" will be applied. Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Wed Dec 7 22:51:46 2011 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 19:51:46 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <833EC980-67A5-480B-905A-AF5228C8AC90@arin.net> References: <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <833EC980-67A5-480B-905A-AF5228C8AC90@arin.net> Message-ID: <4EE03452.8020802@matthew.at> On 12/7/2011 12:47 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >> I'd sign an LRSA too if I could dictate all the exceptions to policy I'd like to take. > Matt - > > Alas, all RSA's require compliance to community-developed Internet > address policies in the region... Why wouldn't you just submit > the exceptions that you seek as policy proposals? > > I've submitted several policy proposals, some of which are even moving forward in the process, and supported others, that would get some of those "exceptions to policy" that I might want implemented as policy changes. (For instance, 2011-10, 2011-11 and 2011-12) But I've not had much luck with, for instance, a policy proposal to allow a legacy holder seller and their recipient to work out an arbitrary "more liberal" justification of need than is currently specified. And even if I did, it wouldn't pass soon enough for Borders/Cerner to take advantage of it. Matthew Kaufman From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 00:34:44 2011 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:34:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Implementation of NRPM 8.3 In-Reply-To: References: <20110422191446.GA21617@panix.com> <4DB1E9BC.5040407@ipinc.net> <2EA752CF-D2B1-4FB6-A5DF-CCFB1EEB3685@arin.net> <4DB21321.7070306@ipinc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> On 4/22/2011 2:35 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> [ clip ] > >> If the RIR system did get pushed into the treaty mechanism at some >> future date, ARIN would be in a lot stronger position because of these >> actions. >> > Which, frankly, I think is part of the reason for joining ITU. > > I remember in KL spending some time talking to the ITU representative > and explaining to her that the problem most of us have with the ITU is not > that they are open to the participation of governments, but, the fact that they > are not so open to the participation of everyone who is not a government. > Considering that our governments represent us, in most cases, I don't see how this is a valid argument. The ITU is a classic example of an easy bogeyman. To date, no one has really explained exactly what is wrong with the ITU being involved in numbering other than labeling them as a sort of cult. I honestly have no idea what to think or believe either way. Best, -M< From paul at redbarn.org Thu Dec 8 02:06:17 2011 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 07:06:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <4EE03452.8020802@matthew.at> References: <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <833EC980-67A5-480B-905A-AF5228C8AC90@arin.net> <4EE03452.8020802@matthew.at> Message-ID: <4EE061E9.1030302@redbarn.org> On 12/8/2011 3:51 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > ... > But I've not had much luck with, for instance, a policy proposal to > allow a legacy holder seller and their recipient to work out an > arbitrary "more liberal" justification of need than is currently > specified. And even if I did, it wouldn't pass soon enough for > Borders/Cerner to take advantage of it. matthew, i don't think a policy proposal along those lines would reach consensus. but let's have a thought experiment and find out. what's your value proposition here -- why would it be beneficial to the community to have more liberal needs justifications for transfers? From jcurran at arin.net Thu Dec 8 05:04:57 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:04:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <4EE032AD.5000407@matthew.at> References: <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar in.net> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <4EE032AD.5000407@matthew.at> Message-ID: <01A73C87-AFF2-494E-AEEF-9759B65315A0@arin.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 12/7/2011 11:21 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >> Sure, but just as is suggested by footnote 9 (iirc) in the current case, the "need" requirements specified by policy may not have fully applied. (We don't know, of course, because the needs justification that may or may not have been provided by Microsoft in that case isn't part of the transparency provided by ARIN to the public.) >> > > To elaborate, I refer specifically to Footnote 9 from the Motion for Order > > "9 This will likely entail ARIN?s approval of Cerner based on a reasonable demonstration of a need for the > addresses (under a standard that is more liberal than their policy for transfer of non-legacy numbers)." I believe that this has been corrected in final form of the Order. > I'm not sure where in the NRPM to find a policy that permits a holder of legacy resources to transfer to a recipient who, while they are signing a form of LRSA, is allowed to use a "more liberal" policy than 8.3's "which they can justify under current ARIN policies" (either a 3 or 12 month window of need, depending on whether Cerner is an end user or ISP and/or has previously received resources that are effectively utilized. > > Of course, as I pointed out above, just like the Microsoft-as-recipient transfer that was discussed previously, we will never know what needs justification was or will be provided, and if a standard "more liberal than their policy for transfer of non-legacy numbers" will be applied. No intent for a different standard to be used; stand by. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 9 00:53:02 2011 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201112090553.pB95r2m1021670@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 80 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 9 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.75% | 27 | 31.29% | 189902 | jcurran at arin.net 16.25% | 13 | 14.88% | 90307 | hannigan at gmail.com 8.75% | 7 | 9.02% | 54724 | bensons at queuefull.net 7.50% | 6 | 8.04% | 48782 | owen at delong.com 7.50% | 6 | 7.06% | 42840 | mike at nationwideinc.com 2.50% | 2 | 5.22% | 31652 | kkargel at polartel.com 3.75% | 3 | 3.54% | 21504 | matthew at matthew.at 3.75% | 3 | 3.47% | 21038 | jrhett at netconsonance.com 3.75% | 3 | 3.22% | 19564 | cengel at conxeo.com 1.25% | 1 | 3.38% | 20501 | hpreston at flexiant.com 2.50% | 2 | 1.90% | 11546 | mueller at syr.edu 1.25% | 1 | 1.92% | 11656 | stephen at sprunk.org 1.25% | 1 | 1.51% | 9158 | info at arin.net 1.25% | 1 | 1.29% | 7811 | lar at mwtcorp.net 1.25% | 1 | 1.20% | 7286 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.25% | 1 | 1.09% | 6640 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 1.25% | 1 | 1.00% | 6081 | paul at redbarn.org 1.25% | 1 | 0.98% | 5949 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 80 |100.00% | 606941 | Total From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 14:36:10 2011 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:36:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Implementation of NRPM 8.3 In-Reply-To: References: <20110422191446.GA21617@panix.com> <4DB1E9BC.5040407@ipinc.net> <2EA752CF-D2B1-4FB6-A5DF-CCFB1EEB3685@arin.net> <4DB21321.7070306@ipinc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 22:34, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> I remember in KL spending some time talking to the ITU representative >> and explaining to her that the problem most of us have with the ITU is not >> that they are open to the participation of governments, but, the fact that they >> are not so open to the participation of everyone who is not a government. >> > > Considering that our governments represent us, in most cases, I don't > see how this is a valid argument. The ITU is a classic example of an > easy bogeyman. To date, no one has really explained exactly what is > wrong with the ITU being involved in numbering other than labeling > them as a sort of cult. The text you quoted answers that question; the ITU is not open to participation like all of the existing Internet bodies are. ~Chris > I honestly have no idea what to think or believe either way. > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 14 07:31:58 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:31:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Trial WhoWas Service and WhoWas Consultation Message-ID: <858C21D1-B6D6-46CD-8782-BA3F2BB12844@arin.net> PPML Community - Based in part on feedback received at the Philly Public Policy Meeting, ARIN is now offering a trial WhoWas service that provides historical registration information for a given IP address or ASN. This trial period will run until the production system is deployed, and will serve to provide much needed data to assist ARIN in defining the scope and use for this service. Details on the trial WhoWaS service are available here: It's important for ARIN to receive input from the community to get a better understanding of how WhoWas would be used as a production service. To that end, we are currently conducting a consultation on this matter, and ask that anyone interested in the service take the time to either email or fill out the survey regarding their needs for the WhoWas production offering. Information on participating in the WhoWas consultation are here: Thanks! (and Happy Holidays :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 14 09:57:04 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:57:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Trial WhoWas Service and WhoWas Consultation In-Reply-To: References: <858C21D1-B6D6-46CD-8782-BA3F2BB12844@arin.net> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi John, > > Let's say that acting as a facilitator, I wish to review the registration history of an address block being proffered by a seller. > Wouldn't 2a of the Terms of service prevent this because of the word non-commercial? > > 2. Grant of Access and Use > (a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the other WHOWAS > Terms, ARIN grants to User a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, limited > license to use the WHOWAS Database and the WHOWAS Data solely for the purpose of User?s > internal non-commercial research into the historical registration information of Internet number > resources. > > Should I have posted this on the ARIN-Consultation mailing list? Mike - I agree that such a use does not appear consistent with the present WhoWas AUP. Multiple issues exist, in that the proposed use would likely be both commercial and external at some point in the process. If you believe that we should strike "non-commercial' from the WhoWas AUP (or any other similar changes), please send that suggestion in on the ARIN-Consultation mailing list. (Note also that proposed seller could ask to have the block listed in STLS, and ARIN would in the process validate that they are the correct registrant for such purposes.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 16 00:53:02 2011 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201112160553.pBG5r2aV020245@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 16 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 2 | 47.46% | 12115 | jcurran at arin.net 25.00% | 1 | 26.56% | 6780 | narten at us.ibm.com 25.00% | 1 | 25.98% | 6632 | cgrundemann at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 25527 | Total From info at arin.net Tue Dec 20 09:54:27 2011 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:54:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2011 Message-ID: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about several draft policies and a proposal. The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be posted separately to last call): ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Tue Dec 20 09:54:47 2011 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:54:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers - Last Call Message-ID: <4EF0A1B7.2060601@arin.net> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 15 December 2011 and decided to send the following draft policy to last call: ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-11 will expire on 13 January 2012. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review. The draft policy text is below and available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2011-11 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers Date: 24 August 2011 Policy statement: Add to Section 8.3: "...they can justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 12 months." Remove from 4.2.4.4: "This reduction does not apply to resources received via section 8.3. An organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to request up to a 12-month supply of IP addresses." Rationale: An organization which is not able to obtain its initial IPv4 address assignment from ARIN post-runout would otherwise be limited to purchasing only a 3-month supply (because the language in 4.2.4.4 regarding 8.3 transfers is not triggered). An organization which has only recently received its first allocation under the "last /8" criteria is also otherwise limited to purchasing only a 3-month supply (because the language in 4.2.4.4 is again not applicable). There is also ambiguity if 4.2.2.1.3 is applied in that a transfer to a new organization might only need to show need for a /20 (because that is what is specifically called out) even though they are receiving a much larger block. Previous version of this proposal modified Section 8 to point at 4.2.4, rather than the shorter and clearer modification to 8.3 now proposed. There is also ambiguity with regard to transfers under 8.2 where the receiving organization is a new organization... not at all clear how "justified need" has been or should be determined, however this proposal no longer addresses this. Timetable for implementation: immediate From info at arin.net Tue Dec 20 09:55:34 2011 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:55:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months - Last Call Message-ID: <4EF0A1E6.8050105@arin.net> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 15 December 2011 and decided to send the following draft policy to last call: ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-12 will expire on 13 January 2012. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review. The draft policy text is below and available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2011-12 Set Transfer Need to 24 months Date: 24 August 2011 Policy statement: If ARIN-prop-146 passes, also modify "will be utilized within 12 months" to "will be utilized within 24 months" Rationale: Due to the complexity of the financial transaction that may be involved and the associated budgeting on the part of the receiving organization, 24 months is a more reasonable amount of forecast need to allow to be fulfilled via the transfer process. Potential benefit to address aggregation by allowing fewer larger transfers sooner. Change from previous version: uses the new language proposed in ARIN-prop-146 rather than modifying 4.2.4.4. Also no longer modifies 4.2.4.4 to apply to section 8.2 transfers. Timetable for implementation: immediate From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Dec 20 10:45:09 2011 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:45:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2011 In-Reply-To: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> Message-ID: <7708483401139651875@unknownmsgid> On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:54 AM, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory > Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about > several draft policies and a proposal. > > The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be > posted separately to last call): > > ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers > ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months I supported moving both of these to last call, because I believe they are both improvements to existing policy, and both enjoyed community support at the PPM in Philly. Scott > > The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: > > ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From info at arin.net Thu Dec 22 12:55:16 2011 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:55:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Message-ID: <4EF36F04.6090902@arin.net> ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 1 Date: 22 DEC 2011 Proposal type: MODIFY Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: Change policy statement from: 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Reassignment information for prior allocations must show that each customer meets the 80% utilization criteria and must be available via SWIP / RWhois prior to your issuing them additional space. To: 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Reassignment information for prior allocations made from the same ISP's inventory must show that each customer meets the 80% utilization criteria and must be available via SWIP / RWhois prior to your issuing them additional number resources. Rationale: Existing policy is vague. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 23 00:53:02 2011 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201112230553.pBN5r2j9022671@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 23 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 4 | 65.77% | 23419 | info at arin.net 16.67% | 1 | 17.36% | 6180 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 16.67% | 1 | 16.88% | 6009 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 35608 | Total From jcurran at arin.net Fri Dec 23 07:33:01 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:33:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Happy Holidays (was: Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net) In-Reply-To: <201112230553.pBN5r2j9022671@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <201112230553.pBN5r2j9022671@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <4EA1162B-981C-4547-83B2-BF445D0A9BB4@corp.arin.net> On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:53 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. :-) I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those who participated in the Policy Development Process throughout this year, as it is only by your efforts that we are able to develop sound community-based policies for the management of the address space in the region. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Tue Dec 27 08:30:25 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:30:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block In-Reply-To: <01A73C87-AFF2-494E-AEEF-9759B65315A0@arin.net> References: <"C AMDXq5P4b7bM6dEbOOCtmr7usdn8F28t5=kZq9DcsbHD3YsnAA"@mail.gmail.com> <"F55FF9C4FDB76 643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC0"@Skyhawk> <49F50EF0-5487-4CD1-8964-CE36EE1668D7@queuefull.net> <"F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEF F21CC2"@Skyhawk> <"4870FA880F304F2FA7BE28 3037BD7B1D"@video> <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1@MPC> <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB@delong.com> <2AB8E5FE-C0CA-4E02-ADDE-AEA3BAC2C306@queuefull.net> <9E53CAFB-513E-4A28-92E9-8351D218C756@corp.ar> <241BB133-2943-4667-931E-C1CAD505AEF0@corp.arin.net> <4EE032AD.5000407@matthew.at> <01A73C87-AFF2-494E-AEEF-9759B65315A0@arin.net> Message-ID: <383665D8-05D5-4452-BB8F-8A52B4C61BC2@corp.arin.net> On Dec 8, 2011, at 5:04 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >> To elaborate, I refer specifically to Footnote 9 from the Motion for Order >> >> "9 This will likely entail ARIN?s approval of Cerner based on a reasonable demonstration of a need for the >> addresses (under a standard that is more liberal than their policy for transfer of non-legacy numbers)." > > I believe that this has been corrected in final form of the Order. > ... > No intent for a different standard to be used; stand by. To follow up on this item, the final Order as issued is available here: It contains the following paragraph which makes clear (among other points) that ARIN is not obligated to apply any different standard to the transfer: > F. Other Provisions. > > 14. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, including, without limitation, paragraphs J, 3-8, 11 and 16, hereof, (i) the IA Sale, as stated in the Agreements, is conditioned upon ARIN?s consent including any terms and/or conditions established by ARIN?s transfer policies or any other policies, guidelines, or regulations developed by ARIN and published on its website, as may be amended and supplemented from time to time (collectively, ?ARIN?s Policies?), (ii) the transfer of the Debtors? interests in the Internet Addresses to the Purchaser is subject to ARIN?s Policies, (iii) the Debtors and the Purchaser are required to comply with ARIN?s Policies before any transfer of the Debtors? rights in the Internet Addresses may be effectuated.; (iv) ARIN is not required to take any action in violation of ARIN?s Policies in connection with or as a consequence of this Order, the IA Sale, or the Agreements, nor shall ARIN be required to apply a different standard to the transfer of the Internet Addresses than it does to the transfer of non-legacy Internet Protocol numbers. Nothing in this Order is intended, nor shall be construed, as exempting the Debtors and Purchaser from complying with the ARIN Policies. Subject to the conditions set forth in this paragraph, ARIN has approved of the transfer as contemplated herein and shall take reasonable steps to provide assistance for the transfer as contemplated in this Order. FYI (and Happy Holidays!) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 30 00:53:02 2011 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201112300553.pBU5r2Mp015741@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 30 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 69.35% | 13597 | jcurran at arin.net 33.33% | 1 | 30.65% | 6008 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 19605 | Total