[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Owen DeLong]

On May 11, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi McTim,
> 
> >The goals, IIRC, are uniqueness, registration and conservation.
> 
> Uniqueness and registration are served by my proposal.
> Conservation of the free pool is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and I want to continue needs-based allocations from the free pool.
> 
>> It just makes no sense to me to abandon a needs basis just because we
>> are getting closer to the bottom of the pool.  I think a needs basis
>> may be even more important as the crunch comes.
> 
> I have given reasons why I believe, along with the APNIC community, that maintaining needs requirements for transfers will cause transactions to occur and not be registered. When the crunch comes, ARIN won't be allocating anything. The only ones allocating IPv4 resource then are those whose price is met. The need the seller will be concerned with is the need to get money for addresses. The need the buyer will be concerned with is utilizing them profitably. Neither buyer nor seller will be concerned with ARIN's determination of need. If ARIN won't register the transaction due to this requirement, whois suffers.
> 
This operates on the assertion that rDNS and RPKI are also irrelevant to the buyer
which are assertions I believe to be false.
>> 
>> I think Owen is spot on that "the risk to whois accuracy is relatively
>> low and is a spectre" (although I would call it a red-herring).
> 
> I have personally seen these kinds of transactions, and even Owen concedes they will likely happen with more frequency as we move past free pool exhaust.
> 
Where I believe current frequency is so close to zero as to be insignificant and
increased frequency will likely be a barely noticeable blip above zero.

>> I also think your characterisation of ARIN actions as "shabby" is unwarranted.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that the ARIN needs analysis of the MS/Nortel deal was fair and accurate?
> If so, I can see why you would feel shabby is an unwarranted word.
> 
I have no reason to doubt the word of John Curran and the staff of ARIN, so, yes,
I am inclined to believe that the needs analysis of the deal was fair and accurate.

Owen