[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7

Wed Dec 7 11:49:40 EST 2011

I have unsubcribed to this can you remove me from your mailing list I feel that emails that are sent to me are messy and of no real value  

----- Original Message -----
From: arin-ppml-request at arin.net
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Sent: Wednesday, 7 December, 2011 4:33:52 PM
Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
	arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	arin-ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	arin-ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (John Curran)
   2. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Mike Burns)
   3. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (John Curran)
   4. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Owen DeLong)
   5. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Mike Burns)
   6. Re: Borders sells their /16 block (Chris Engel)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:14:50 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
Message-ID: <0F5C191D-6220-4696-8F48-F93E92A02241 at arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Dec 6, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> A steward doesn't cause havoc by creating conditions whereby a state of non-uniqueness exists in our Internet for no good reason.

Mike - 

  To be clear, we'll always maintain a state of uniqueness in registry
  entries, and parties following the registry will benefit as a result. 
  This does not inhibit you from configuring your routers with any IP
  addresses that you like, and the actual use of IP address blocks in 
  the Internet is not assured to be unique (particularly if parties are
  selling 'something' that doesn't involve changes to registry entries)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:10:10 -0500
From: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
To: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>,	<arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
Message-ID: <63F1407419534FCB9FF31B3D22EC08D1 at MPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Hi McTim,

>How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case?

-- 
>Cheers,

>McTim

This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking 
the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking.
Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and 
party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant 
justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block.

I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances.

My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders 
which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses 
were doled out before ARIN even existed.
ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data 
therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread 
on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for 
tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights 
holder and the buyer.

I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while 
recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of 
non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. 
With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked.
Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is one 
of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all 
parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into 
RSA space.

Regards,

Mike

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:31:22 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net \(arin-ppml at arin.net\)" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
Message-ID: <F593162D-5E97-4C69-B1F3-FF23926EFE5E at corp.arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> 
> My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed.

That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in the
region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including IANA 
and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN specifically 
to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by which 
they are managed and allocated.[*] 

[*] <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>

> ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer.

An amusing theory. Also worth considering is that someone trying to sell
integers, who knows in advance that any uniqueness is the result of the
registry which they don't plan on complying with, may easily be seen as
engaging in fraud (particularly if they don't make the purchaser well 
aware of this little detail at the time of the transaction.)  In most 
states, there are very clear laws about this sort of behavior, although
they were passed due to the creative 'sale' of bridges and swampland.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:31:24 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
Message-ID: <08DB4084-82E6-409B-9AAC-5DA20A2B82AB at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi McTim,
> 
> 
>> How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case?
> 
> -- 
>> Cheers,
> 
>> McTim
> 
> 
> This is not a hijack. Registrant wants to sell to buyer, he is not taking the registrant's block without permission, as in a hijacking.
> Owen is saying that if a legacy address rights holder sells to party B and party B chooses not to engage in a Section 8 transfer, with the attendant justification requirements, that ARIN should revoke and reissue the block.

Even legacy addresses were issued on a needs basis with the expectation that at the end of need, the block would be returned to the community for reallocation.

While this expectation may not be in writing provably old enough to serve as documentation or policy, that was the reasonable expectation of the (at the time friendly and not monetarily based) community.

If party B chooses not to engage in a section 8 transfer, and party A is no longer using the addresses (whether defunct, unreachable, etc.), then ARIN cannot distinguish party B from a hijacker and party B has no documentable right to any ARIN registration. The appropriate action in such a case is for ARIN to delete party A's registration and return the addresses to the ARIN free pool.

> I'm not sure if the example you gave matches these circumstances.

You can argue that it is not a hijack, but, from a policy perspective, it is indistinguishable from one.

> My argument is that ARIN has no contract with legacy address rights holders which gives it the right to apply its policies. Remember these addresses were doled out before ARIN even existed.

I think this misses the key point...

ARIN has no contract with legacy holders which requires them to maintain any registration for those holders in their databases. ARIN chooses to do so for the community benefit and out of good will. ARIN has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do so for third parties that choose to attempt to operate outside of the community and in a manner contrary to policies set by that community.

Remember, ARIN revocation is not taking the addresses away from them. It is merely deleting the registration which never pointed to party B in the first place.

Once the registration to party A is deleted, the addresses should become part of the free pool and would naturally then be registered to some other party C. While it does not guarantee party C that they can use those addresses effectively on the internet, those parties that choose to work within the community according to policy are likely to give more weight to the registration in the ARIN database(s) than to some arbitrary contract between a former legacy holder and a third party that refuses to work within the system established by the community for managing address uniqueness and registration.

> ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the address rights holder and the buyer.

ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action against party B (derouting).

> I believe that the best way to maintain the registry function while recognizing the legal realities would be to require Section 8 transfers of non-legacy space, because in that case ARIN has a contract with the seller. With non-LRSA legacy space, transfers should merely be booked.

I don't think elevating those that choose not to participate in the community to a level of sovereignty over the community is a rational approach at all.

That would be sort of like allowing people who wanted to be above the law to buy exemptions from the law. While such a concept has existed in the past and there are those that would argue that it materially happens today (though not within the laws of the US at least), conceptually, it was retired long ago and I don't believe that the majority would consider it a desirable concept.

> Prop-151 goes a step further and requires an RSA of the buyer, which is one of the benefits of Prop-151, IMO, in that it will use the desire of all parties to have a unique registration in Whois to drive legacy space into RSA space.

Current policy requires an RSA of the buyer, too. So I don't see how that is a benefit of 151 vs. current policy.

Owen

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:22:56 -0500
From: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
To: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
Message-ID: <9D2BC3B7BDC34C6486ECDD3387129C85 at MPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

>That's correct, but doesn't also reflect the fact that the assignments in 
>the
region were made under a long line of US Government contracts (including 
IANA
and InterNIC), the responsibility for which was transferred to ARIN 
specifically
to give the users of IP numbers in the region a voice in the policies by 
which
they are managed and allocated.[*]

>[*] <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>

All the chain of custody documents I have seen start with the US Commerce 
contract.

>> ARIN controls the Whois database, and can do what they wish with the data 
>> therein, but when attempting to negate the uniqueness of addresses, we 
>> tread on dangerous ground, and not just the danger that ARIN will be 
>> liable for tortious interference in the sales contract between the 
>> address rights holder and the buyer.

>An amusing theory. Also worth considering is that someone trying to sell
integers, who knows in advance that any uniqueness is the result of the
registry which they don't plan on complying with, may easily be seen as
engaging in fraud (particularly if they don't make the purchaser well
aware of this little detail at the time of the transaction.)  In most
states, there are very clear laws about this sort of behavior, although
they were passed due to the creative 'sale' of bridges and swampland.

>/John

An amusing counter-theory, I hope for ARIN's sake this is not the 
double-secret legal strategy which may not be spoken of.
But then we are neither of us lawyers, maybe it's time for ARIN counsel to 
address this issue openly and transparently?
After all, the numbers were presumed to be unique when they were doled out 
prior to the ARIN registry's existence.
Phone numbers are also integers, yet they are bought and sold. Domains are 
just letters and numbers, yet they are bought and sold.

Regards,
Mike

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:33:48 -0500
From: Chris Engel <cengel at conxeo.com>
To: 'Owen DeLong' <owen at delong.com>, Mike Burns
	<mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
Message-ID: <F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB30EEFF21CC4 at Skyhawk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of
> addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations
> retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid
> registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a
> unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense
> of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN
> or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the
> internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action
> against party B (derouting).

On the other hand, it's probably best for everyone involved if the above scenario is avoided. One thing to reclaim space that has been "high jacked",  another thing to reclaim it from organizations who do have some reasonable non-arbitrary basis for believing they have a legitimate claim to such space....such as a Bankruptcy Court approving said transfer or a contract from the entity which is legitimately listed as holder of that space in the registry.

In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far.

Introducing degrees of uncertainty, even if it was technically within the bounds of policy....probably doesn't serve anyone's interests well.

Christopher Engel 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7
****************************************

-- 
With my best regards
Hannah

Hannah Preston
Flexiant Ltd

Tel: +44 203 371 3653
Fax: +44 1506 606 013
www.flexiant.com       