[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers -Shepherd's Inquiry

[Larry Ash]

"Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Owen,
> 
> I don't think ARIN will be confronted with anything, I think they will be 
>ignored.
> And I don't think ARIN has any rights to revoke or reclaim legacy space 
>unless they have an agreement with the rights holder which gives them that 
>right.

You can argue the reverse just as forcefully. What "right" does a legacy 
holder
have that a simple squatter doesn't. i.e It works now, it worked yesterday 
and
your threatening to make it not work tomorrow. That has weight but not a 
lot.

Any agreement that may have been in place is with a now defunct 
organization.
The fact that ARIN agreed to allow the legacy holders to continue when they
were formed is  the strongest argument that a legacy holder has but I'd 
wouldn't
want to try and take that to a court. I have never gotten IP from any entity 
that
said they were mine. There was always (at least by 1993) language that 
indicated
that they could be reclaimed under some condition.

> Clearly they have no additional rights under section 12 to reclaim legacy 
>space, that's explicit in the NRPM.
> So you would have to demonstrate some other source of that reclamation 
>right.
> It's not in any agreement between ARIN and the legacy holder, and it's not 
>part of any agreement the legacy allocants had with ARIN's precursors.
> Where does it come from?

Existing ARIN policy does not create "rights" for people that have
no formal relationship with ARIN. ARIN policy, up to now, is to
leave well enough alone, that's not exactly a contract.

ARIN could argue that every legacy holder has had ample time to formalize
a relationship and declare the legacy IP not under NRPM abandoned. I know 
that
would be a mistake as it would create an unnecessary war. But the belief 
that
not formalizing a relationship with ARIN, because someone believes that they
have superior "rights" without one is a mistake also.

aside: The IPV6 boys made a mistake by not clearly indicating that IPV6 is
a replacement for IPV4 with the IPV4 drop date to be announced. If we are 
ever
to get out of this swamp that is going to have to be done and a drop dead
date picked.


  

> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> Cc: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>; "arin ppml" <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers 
>-Shepherd's Inquiry
> 
> 
>>
>> My argument is that we cannot abandon the whole IP market thing. It is out 
>>of our control, because the limited power we have is in Whois and reverse 
>>naming.
>> We can't force network operators to route or not to route certain 
>>addresses, and I see no stomach at ARIN for challenging legacy transfers by 
>>revoking and reissuing their space.
>>
> Like speculation, just because you don't see it does not mean that it is 
>not there.
> 
> I believe that confronted with a legacy transfer that happened off the 
>books ARIN will go through the following steps (John, feel free to correct 
>me if I'm wrong):
> 
> 1. Attempt to contact the original holder of the resources
> If they acknowledge the transfer, see if the recipient and original holder 
>will work to
> complete the transaction under NRPM 8.
> 
> If they do not acknowledge the transfer, let them know their space has 
>been hijacked
> and encourage them to take appropriate action.
> 
> If they are unreachable, work with the recipient to see if sufficient 
>documentation
> exists to complete an 8.2 or 8.3 transfer and attempt to do so.
> 
> 2. If the original resource holder is unreachable and a transfer cannot be 
>completed
> as described above, I believe ARIN will reclaim the space as abandoned and 
>take
> the appropriate steps to clean and reissue it.
> 
> 3. If the original resource holder is unreachable or uncooperative and the 
>"recipient" refuses to cooperate,
> I believe ARIN is also likely to proceed with reclamation under NRPM 12.
> 
> 
>> So to think we have any significant power to prevent the rise of an IPv4 
>>market is naive. What we should do is acknowledge it and take the steps to 
>>transition ARIN from an arbiter of who gets addresses to a title-agency 
>>whose routing authority is respected enough to handle the challenges facing 
>>registration in the post-exhaust world.
>>
> 
> Can we prevent the rise of a market? Probably not. Can we apply a 
>needs-basis test to that market and regulate the redistribution of 
>addresses through that market by applying reasonable stewardship policies 
>governing the source and recipient conduct in the market? Yes.
> 
> There is a lot of room between the extremes of "ignore the market 
>altogether" and "acknowledge the market and let it become a free-for-all 
>with no rules".
> 
> I realize that you favor the latter extreme. I favor something towards the 
>former, but much closer to the middle.
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Larry Ash
Network Administrator
Mountain West Telephone
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387