ARIN-PPML Message

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

Hi Larry,

What you can take into court is the fact that there was an original 
allocation made without formal agreements, that IP addresses have appeared 
on innumerable asset sales documents as transferred assets (impying 
ownership), that ARIN has failed to exercise its claimed reclamation rights, 
leaving the current holders in adverse possession, and that no other 
claimant has greater rights.

What ARIN can do is change Whois. ARIN has the rights to do this, I am not 
claiming otherwise. I am saying ARIN has no legal right to stop a legacy 
sale, and taking action via Whois runs the risk of increasing Whois 
irrelevance.  So far it seems like this is not a course that ARIN has 
chosen, wisely, I think.

On the other hand, ARIN seeks to bring legacy holders under agreement which 
will give ARIN some of these rights, particularly of note is the insistence 
on legacy holders signing away any ownership rights, which is curious 
considering they claim that legacy holders don't have those anyway.

And of course we have the declaration of Mr. Plzak in which he explicitly 
claims ARIN has no control over legacy addresses, and the fact that the 
bankruptcy judge in the Nortel case found that Nortel had the exclusive 
right to transfer addresses assigned to prior acquisitions, even after 
Nortel was bankrupt.

You are right that ARIN can make the claim that they have tried to contact 
legacy holders and they will begin re-allocating addresses for those who are 
not reachable. ARIN has the right to erase ALL legacy holders who have not 
signed an LRSA agreement from the records of Whois, and do it this afternoon 
without notifying anyone.

Regards,
Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Ash" <lar at mwtcorp.net>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>; "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "arin ppml" <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers-Shepherd's 
Inquiry


> "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> I don't think ARIN will be confronted with anything, I think they will be 
>> ignored.
>> 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 can argue the reverse just as forcefully. What "right" does a legacy 
> holder
> have that a simple squatter doesn't. i.e It works now, it worked yesterday 
> and
> your threatening to make it not work tomorrow. That has weight but not a 
> lot.
>
> Any agreement that may have been in place is with a now defunct 
> organization.
> The fact that ARIN agreed to allow the legacy holders to continue when 
> they
> were formed is  the strongest argument that a legacy holder has but I'd 
> wouldn't
> want to try and take that to a court. I have never gotten IP from any 
> entity that
> said they were mine. There was always (at least by 1993) language that 
> indicated
> that they could be reclaimed under some condition.
>
>> Clearly they have no additional rights under section 12 to reclaim legacy 
>> space, that's explicit in the NRPM.
>> So you would have to demonstrate some other source of that reclamation 
>> right.
>> 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?
>
> Existing ARIN policy does not create "rights" for people that have
> no formal relationship with ARIN. ARIN policy, up to now, is to
> leave well enough alone, that's not exactly a contract.
>
> ARIN could argue that every legacy holder has had ample time to formalize
> a relationship and declare the legacy IP not under NRPM abandoned. I know 
> that
> would be a mistake as it would create an unnecessary war. But the belief 
> that
> not formalizing a relationship with ARIN, because someone believes that 
> they
> have superior "rights" without one is a mistake also.
>
> aside: The IPV6 boys made a mistake by not clearly indicating that IPV6 is
> a replacement for IPV4 with the IPV4 drop date to be announced. If we are 
> ever
> to get out of this swamp that is going to have to be done and a drop dead
> date picked.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> Larry Ash
> Network Administrator
> Mountain West Telephone
> 123 W 1st St.
> Casper, WY 82601
> Office 307 233-8387