[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
mike at nationwideinc.com
Wed Dec 7 10:10:10 EST 2011
>How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case?
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML