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

[John Curran]

On May 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> 
>> Indeed.  To be accurate:
> 
>> In 2006, ARIN did not have an agreement with UUNET (or other legacy
>> address holders) which would give it authority over their specific
>> legacy addresses.
> 
> OK, does ARIN have an agreement today (excepting LRSA signers) which would give it authority over legacy addresses?

In 2008, we rolled out the LRSA to help formalize relations between
legacy address holders and ARIN.  Maintenance of other legacy address 
entries is done pursuant to several documents including those from 
ARIN's formation and MOU's related to ICANN.  I can see clearly how 
these make ARIN responsible for maintenance of these entries in the
registry, but I do not know if they meet your particular criteria of 
"authority".

>>> If I was allocated legacy space and never signed an LRSA, would it be illegal for me to sell those addresses to Company A?
> 
>> What *exactly* would you allegedly be selling to Company A?  You
>> have already indicated that it is not related to Whois, so do you
>> believe it is related to Company A's ability to use those numbers
>> in the Internet?
> 
> Let's just say it's an asset sale, exactly like the one we have on public record in the MS/Nortel deal.
> And the listed assets showed the rights to control a specific netblock. Would that be a legal transaction?

Ah, perhaps you mean "Seller's rights in the number resources", not 
actual integers?  

If indeed done on the same terms that the judge approved, including:

  "For the avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and the 
   Purchaser’s rights in the Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this 
   Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA."

then quite likely.  Recognize also that many other parties potentially 
have overlapping rights on the your same number resources (although only 
he registrant has the exclusive rights of use in the registry and right
of transfer).

> My legal interpretation seems correct. All I have ever said is that ARIN has no authority over legacy address holders control rights and cannot stop a sale of legacy addresses from one party to another, legally.

I would significantly disagree, but to be clear the matter remains TBD. 
Where we have intervened, we've had resolution in compliance with the
community developed policies.

> I believe that if anything, the need for consistency is even more heightened now. There is a need for ARIN policy to be consistent with legal policy, in order to minimize legal conflict, and more importantly, to maintain Whois as an accurate and reliable registry of who controls what netblocks.

ARIN's policy is consistent with law.  However, someone who knowingly entices 
another to trade in "magic numbers" with claims that they have no relation to 
the ARIN registry (despite being recorded therein) may be a different matter.

Enjoy,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN