[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

On May 10, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> 
> 
>> Since this point is germane to my proposal, could I ask for some status on the discussion that Bill Herrin and John Curran were having related to the potential for making some changes to the LRSA?
> 
>> Currently in progress.  We're trying to make more plain english language for
>> the existing terms and conditions, and remove language which is conflicting
>> and/or inoperative.
> 
> Thanks John, is there any expected timeframe for a revised LRSA?
> 
> 
>> ...
>> And now legacy holders see that a bankruptcy court gave Nortel the unrestricted right to transfer addresses originally allocated as legacy space to entities Nortel acquired in the 1990s.
>> So addresses allocated to Company A passed into the "ownership" of Company B without recourse to any ARIN processes.
> 
>> The above statement is factually incorrect.  The transfer occurred in
>> accordance with the community developed policies.  If it hadn't been,
>> then the transfer would not have been approved, and the outcome of that
>> situation might have been more indicative (either way).
> 
> 
> If the transfer would not have been "approved" by ARIN, wouldn't Microsoft still be using addresses allocated originally to Nortel's "predecessors in interest" ?

If they were, then it would have been appropriate for ARIN to determine that the
addresses in question had been hijacked from the original (possibly now defunct)
recipient and reclaim them for re-issuance to others through proper allocation
policy.

> What we are dancing around is the definition of transfer.
> If by transfer, you mean ARIN updating whois, then you can say that all transfers happen through policy.
> If by transfer you mean that somebody else is actually using addresses which they have purchased from the original registrant, and ARIN has not updated whois, well those transfers have occurred, and if the costs of acquiring ARIN's approval are higher than the cost of ignoring ARIN,  whois will continue to degrade as these transactions continue.
> 
Transfers outside of policy are indistinguishable to ARIN from hijackings. If the
recorded recipient is no longer utilizing the addresses and they have been hijacked,
ARIN has a responsibility, IMHO, to reclaim those addresses and issue them to an
appropriate party through standard ARIN policy.

> 
>> I want all transfers recorded in whois, and I don't want to miss recording transactions due to requiring agreements that are onerous.
>> 
>> Still, as a legacy holder myself who has not signed the LRSA, I would be inclined to sign the stripped-down LRSA Mr. Herrin suggested, and I would be more likely to sign even an RSA upon adoption of  my >proposed policy, since I would have new rights to resist a utilization review and would also have the ability to do needs-free transfers. These things would go a long way in overcoming existing disincentives to signing >either agreement.
> 
>> The utilization review is a good example: it is definitely non-operative
>> language due to other phrasing in the LRSA, so there is a great question
>> as to whether it is worth retaining in the LRSA (and to some extent, the
>> same question applies to the RSA as policies for transfers for unneeded
>> are now operative)
> 
> It makes no sense to have non-operative language cluttering up an agreement unless it serves some other purpose.
> But I don't understand your parenthetical, is there a typo?
> 
It's not necessarily so inoperative in the RSA, but, with certain policy changes currently under consideration,
it could become so.

Owen