[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Jan 28 16:16:36 EST 2010

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Both are tools. Section 3.6.1 provides for detection and
>>> identification of abandoned resources. Section 12 provides for the
>>> reclamation of underutilized resources regardless of the method used
>>> to identify or detect them.
>> Correct - keep in mind though that while abandoned resources are
>> underutilized resources, underutilized resources are not abandoned
>> resources.
> Nit: underutilized resources are not _necessarily_ abandoned, i.e.
> "abandoned" is a subset of "underutilized".

Right, exactly.

>> By definition an abandoned resource does not have an organization that
>> is defending a claim on it, and it is a waste of time to attempt to
>> "reclaim" it through any review/reclamation procedures that Section 12
>> may outline.
>> I mean, for goodness sake, if no POC on a resource is valid, how is
>> ARIN supposed to "solicited information from the resource holder"
>> (that's right out of section 12) when there's no valid contact for a
>> resource holder?
> If the POCs are not valid, then ARIN should make a reasonable effort to
> contact them (or the organization itself) via some other means.

Correct.  In one of the early drafts of 3.6.1 we had defined a procedure
where staff would do this - an objection was made that this 
unnecessarily tied staffs hands (?!) so we removed that in order to
get the proposal passed.

> is unsuccessful, then the registrant has obviously not provided the
> necessary information to fulfill their requirements under the policy and
> the resource can be revoked.
> IIRC, failing to keep your contact information current (or pay fees) is
> a violation of the RSA, so ARIN could reclaim "abandoned" resources
> covered by an RSA without this policy.

Absolutely,  While I'm quite sure ARIN will do anything possible to
avoid filing a lawsuit, or provoking a lawsuit against them, in my
opinion also, ARIN is on very firm legal footing here.  The RSA requires
contact information to be supplied, and if the contact info is bogus
it certainly doesn't qualify as contact info.

>  ARIN's authority to reclaim
> legacy (non-RSA, non-LRSA) resources in general is an unresolved
> question, though, and one that 2007-14 deliberately sidestepped to
> prevent the debate from getting hijacked.
> You are welcome to submit a policy proposal to change any of the above,
> of course.

I'm waiting for 3.6.1 to become part of the NRPM.  I had actually not
expected ARIN and the AC to agree to allow it to be in limbo for a
year, in "implementation" state.  I want to see what ARIN staff comes
up with because whether or not they are foot-dragging, the AC will
eventually put this in the NRPM and staff will have no choice but to
implement it.  And that will likely generate some refinements.

My gut feeling Stephen is that there are far more abandoned IPv4
resouces out there than IPv4 resources held by orgs which are 
fraudulently holding them and not using them.  I am assuming that
by merely cleaning up whois, that ARIN will self-generate enough IPv4
to keep them busy handing out small allocations for many more years
before it's necessary to go after the fraudulently held resources.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list