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

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>> 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.
> 
By ARIN, I meant specifically ARIN staff.

NRPM 12 requires organizations to remain in compliance with the criteria
specified in sections 4 and 6 of the NRPM even after they have received
their resources. At the time of request for additional resources is just one
of the times that ARIN can conduct an NRPM 12 review of an organizations
utilization.

RSA paragraph 8 aids in this, but, NRPM 12 is sufficient on its own, even
without RSA 8.

NRPM 12 generally is not applied to legacy holders, however, in the case
where a legacy holder is defunct and the addresses are reported to ARIN
as being in use by a non-registered third party, I would argue that ARIN has
a duty to act on the information and conduct an NRPM 12 review and
potentially reclaim said resources, legacy or otherwise.

That is not what happened in the Nortel/M$ case. ARIN became aware of
the situation through a process that fit reasonably well into the NRPM 8.3
transfer policy and so long as the recipient was willing to comply with ARIN
policies, the most logical thing to do in the interests of the community was
to apply that policy.

I agree there appear to be some rough edges in the handling of this particular
issue and the process followed may not have been ideal. However, I haven't
received full information yet and am waiting until I do to lodge any form of
formal protest, policy proposal, or ACSP input to correct any issues.

Owen