ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers -Shepherd's Inquiry

On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> I don't think ARIN will be confronted with anything, I think they will be ignored.

When I say confronted, I mean becomes aware of. There are numerous ways in which it is very likely ARIN will become aware of such things.

> And I don't think ARIN has any rights to revoke or reclaim legacy space unless they have an agreement with the rights holder which gives them that right.

You are incorrect, sir. ARIN is the successor registry to the earlier registries for this region. Those registries ALL issued the address space on the
basis that it was issued to a particular organization for a particular purpose and should be returned when one or both of those criteria was no longer
valid.

> Clearly they have no additional rights under section 12 to reclaim legacy space, that's explicit in the NRPM.

The words in NRPM 12 were chosen very carefully. The word additional is just that. We added no ability to reclaim legacy space, but, the existing
abilities remain.

> So you would have to demonstrate some other source of that reclamation right.

Q.E.D. See above.

> It's not in any agreement between ARIN and the legacy holder, and it's not part of any agreement the legacy allocants had with ARIN's precursors.
> Where does it come from?
> 

It is actually part of policies documented in earlier RFCs and in the writings of Jon Postel as described above.

Owen

> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> Cc: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>; "arin ppml" <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers -Shepherd's Inquiry
> 
> 
>> 
>> My argument is that we cannot abandon the whole IP market thing. It is out of our control, because the limited power we have is in Whois and reverse naming.
>> We can't force network operators to route or not to route certain addresses, and I see no stomach at ARIN for challenging legacy transfers by revoking and reissuing their space.
>> 
> Like speculation, just because you don't see it does not mean that it is not there.
> 
> I believe that confronted with a legacy transfer that happened off the books ARIN will go through the following steps (John, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):
> 
> 1. Attempt to contact the original holder of the resources
> If they acknowledge the transfer, see if the recipient and original holder will work to
> complete the transaction under NRPM 8.
> 
> If they do not acknowledge the transfer, let them know their space has been hijacked
> and encourage them to take appropriate action.
> 
> If they are unreachable, work with the recipient to see if sufficient documentation
> exists to complete an 8.2 or 8.3 transfer and attempt to do so.
> 
> 2. If the original resource holder is unreachable and a transfer cannot be completed
> as described above, I believe ARIN will reclaim the space as abandoned and take
> the appropriate steps to clean and reissue it.
> 
> 3. If the original resource holder is unreachable or uncooperative and the "recipient" refuses to cooperate,
> I believe ARIN is also likely to proceed with reclamation under NRPM 12.
> 
> 
>> So to think we have any significant power to prevent the rise of an IPv4 market is naive. What we should do is acknowledge it and take the steps to transition ARIN from an arbiter of who gets addresses to a title-agency whose routing authority is respected enough to handle the challenges facing registration in the post-exhaust world.
>> 
> 
> Can we prevent the rise of a market? Probably not. Can we apply a needs-basis test to that market and regulate the redistribution of addresses through that market by applying reasonable stewardship policies governing the source and recipient conduct in the market? Yes.
> 
> There is a lot of room between the extremes of "ignore the market altogether" and "acknowledge the market and let it become a free-for-all with no rules".
> 
> I realize that you favor the latter extreme. I favor something towards the former, but much closer to the middle.
> 
> Owen