[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal - 24 month freeze

[John Santos]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jason Schiller wrote:

> I have concerns about section 8.4.1 and 8.4.2.  At a high level these
> sections say if you receive a transfer (act as a transferee) or transfer a
> block (act as a transferor) then you will be prevented from requesting
> additional address space for 24 months.
> 
> This may be problematic if one of the following occurs:
> 
> 1.  Sell or spin off a portion of the network that is less profitable,
> (this includes some network assets, all of its customers on those assets,
> and a transfer of the associated addresses) but continue to grow the
> remaining network thereby requiring additional addresses.  
> 
> 2. Purchase another company that represents a profitable niche market or
> profitable niche service, (this includes some of its network assets, all
> of its customers on those assets and transfer of the associated
> addresses) but continue to grow the pre-exist network thereby requiring
> additional addresses, while maintaining the purchased customer base or
> services and their associated address utilization
> 
> 3. Performing two or more spin offs or acquisitions with a 24 month period
> with no need for additional addresses.
> 
> Is this 24 month freeze the intention of the policy, or an over sight?
> 
> ___Jason
> 

My understanding is that is has always been possible to transfer
address space when companies merge or are acquired by other companies,
(or presumably when part of a company is spun off.)  The physical
network with its addresses intact is transfered to the new company.
For example, HP now controls the DEC /8 because DEC merged with Compaq
and HP then bought the combined Compaq/DEC.  And a million other
examples.  I think the theory is if the original company had demonstrated
need for the address space, and the new company is continuing to operate
the original network, then it clearly has need for the (same) address
space.

As I understand it, the new policy here is intended to deal with cases
where there is *no* ongoing business relationship between the transferor
and the transferee, one just has available address space which the other
needs, and they've come to an agreement (pending ARIN approval), presumably
for cash or other consideration.

So Jason's scenario would fall under existing policies and the new
policy would not apply.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

(Maybe DEC isn't a good example above because it's most likely a legacy,
but I'm sure there are a hundreds if not thousands of other examples.)



-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539