[arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP address Transfers

[Matthew Petach]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>

...

> Because it is now clear that legacy holders can sell addresses without entering into a contract with ARIN, should the transfer policy be altered to reflect the fact that it is basically a voluntary decision of the buying parties to interface with the ARIN contractual regime?
>
> I believe this event shows how short-sighted the community is being in deep-sixing Bensons's proposal(s). That would have started a process to deal with this situation more systematically.
>

Hm.
What about adding a mandatory field to the Whois database output:
"Agreement:" which would list one of three possible values:
LRSA, RSA, or None.

Networks could then make decisions about whether or not they wished
to accept routes from that organization based on the nature of the relationship
between that organization and the RIR.  A paranoid or fascist network might
opt to not accept routes from entities whose Agreement field was set to
anything other than "RSA".  A slightly less paranoid network might allow
RSA or LRSA, but drop prefixes from entities with "None".  Liberal network
policies would accept prefixes from anyone, regardless of their relationship
to the RIR.

Would that provide a means for the community to add some teeth into the
mix, to potentially ostracize networks that do not opt to adopt some level
of formal relationship with the RIR?

Matt