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

[Mike Burns]

>First, the entities in question weren't necessarily defunct and I suspect 
>that Nortel would
>have completed an 8.2 transfer if ARIN had contacted them prior to the 
>bankruptcy. By the
>time ARIN became aware of the issue, M$ was already involved and the right 
>thing to do
>was to process the transfer under 8.3 as if the 8.2 transfers had already 
>occurred. Since
>the 8.2 transfers would be rendered moot by the subsequent 8.3 transfer, 
>skipping that
>extra procedural step at that point basically made sense.

The judge had no truck for any of that, he said Nortel had the exclusive 
right to transfer those addresses.
The entities were so defunct they were in a bankruptcy liquidation.
The "skipping extra procedural step" sounds a lot like failing to issue the 
addresses back to ARIN for the designated transfer to MS, sounds a lot like 
replacing RSA with "modified LRSA", sounds a lot like an after-the-fact 
needs analysis coming in smack dab on the number of addresses previously 
negotiated for purchase.
We are contorting ourselves to try to cover a legal transaction with ARIN 
policies.
ARIN trust is the cost for this.





> Because there is no standard ARIN policy which would allow them to reclaim 
> legacy space.
>
>ARIN has and will (hopefully) continue to reclaim legacy resources that are 
>held by defunct
>organizations.

>Additionally in the case where the registered organization still exists, 
>ARIN should reclaim
>resources that organization is no longer using to prevent hijacking and 
>abuse.

>If ARIN informs me that section 12 is inadequate for these purposes as 
>currently written, I
>will propose policy to rectify that problem.

>Owen

What do you mean if ARIN informs you? You're ARIN. Read section 12 and tell 
me where the authority to do utilization based reviews are found.
The authority is in the RSA only, and an appeal to a best practices IETF 
document like RFC2050 for authority is weak, IMO.

Regards,
Mike