[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Tue Mar 6 04:52:39 EST 2007

> What exactly does "going out of business" mean?  A company can be 
> absorbed by another through a purchase and the brand name tossed away 
> while still maintaining the need for the resources.

Isn't that the key to all of this?

IP addresses aren't assets and aren't intellectual property. They don't
belong to persons or to corporations. They are assigned for use in a
network and as long as there is a network which needs them, then they
can be transferred. Admittedly there are some grey areas such as
networks which are partly dismantled or temporarily shut down, but if
there is a network running or about to be running, at the time ARIN is
contacted and there is some kind of prior relationship between the
transferee and the transferor then we should transfer resources.

In any case, the number one issue is whether the size of the address
blocks are justified by the new assignee. Even if they have a legal
document where the previous assignee says that they can have the
addresses, if they no longer justify the block size, then they should
not get them.

We need to be careful with changes to policy around JUSTIFICATION
because as we wind down to the end of the IPv4 address space over the
next 3 years or so, the question of what is justfication will become a
hot issue. As will audits of address usage.

> In a way I can see this saying the transfers can never happen, 
> meaning that if I buy someone's hosting service I may have to apply 
> for new addresses.  Worse is the thought that I'd have to renumber if 
> I don't get the transfer of resources.

This seems like the typical simple case where the buyer continues to
operate exactly the same network infrastructure and therefore has
exactly the same justification as the original assignee. Seems to me
that we save money by simply doing a paper transfer of the same
addresses to make the new owner, the new assignee.

> I pretty much agree with the intent of this proposal...it's the words 
> I am quibbling about in the previous section.

Seems to always be a big problem with ARIN policy proposals. At least
there is a move towards clearer language and less ambiguity.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list