[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
lar at mwtcorp.net
Wed Dec 7 12:22:53 EST 2011
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:10:10 -0500
> 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.
By 1994, when I was allocated my first IP addresses, it was made clear that
ip address allocation was not property and that I was only receiving a
Limited Right to Use. The fact the ARIN didn't exist makes little difference
since they are filling the role of its predecessors and are making an honest
effort to support those legacy allocation holders. It would appear that
case is stronger than many would like.
When you "sell" an ip allocation you are really selling the idea that your
allocation's route will be allowed into core route tables. Convention says
will probably happen but others could come and offer incentive's to allow
routes instead of yours. If you think someone is willing to pay $12/IP for
registration itself I beg to differ.
I think we have seen enough of the ip market to already predict that it will
well. IPv4 will be replaced not by pressure of scarcity but because it's
only a matter
of time before it's so tied up in claims and counter claims that few want to
unless ARIN and the other RIR's assert a firm hand. Maybe even then.
The idea that a "free market" will make an assortment of multinational
swindlers and foreign governments want to play nice with each other is
I'm a big free market guy, but there is nothing like air supremacy and an
army of lawyers
to "level the playing field" in your favor.
> 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
Mountain West Telephone
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387
More information about the ARIN-PPML