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

[John Curran]

On May 10, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
>> 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.
>> Owen
> 
> But these transfers do happen, and for ARIN to declare them all hijackings, even though legacy holders have no agreement with ARIN to notify them of transfers, is a recipe for the ignoring and increasing irrelevance of whois.
> 
> I hate to keep harping on this, but the bankruptcy docs clearly say these addresses were allocated to Nortel's "predecessors in interest" in the early 1990s.
> Since ARIN became notified that the recorded recipient was no longer utilizing the addresses, why didn't ARIN excercise their responsibility to reclaim those addresses and issue them to an appropriate party through standard ARIN policy?
> 
> Because there is no standard ARIN policy which would allow them to reclaim legacy space.

We do not consider number resources being used by legitimate
successor organizations be "hijacked", regardless of whether 
they are ARIN-issued or legacy assignments. Successor means an 
entity materially acquiring all of the assets and operations
of another.

Whether legacy or ARIN-issued, ARIN encourages parties which 
acquire other organizations to put in a transfer request for
the affected resources per NRPM 8.2 (M&A Transfer) 

FYI,
/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN