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

[Mike Burns]

Good morning Owen,

> When you tighten up restrictions and begin the process Owen is talking 
> about, the revokation and reissuance of space, the potential for conflict 
> is ripe.

We aren't talking about tightening up restrictions. We're talking about not 
removing existing
restrictions. The reclamation and reissuance that I have advocated is 
already there in
current policy.

You are the one proposing a change. I have been describing the current state 
of policy.

Mischaracterizing my position as advocating for change (with the implication 
that you
are advocating codifying existing practice) really doesn't reflect the 
reality of the
situation.
>
>Owen



OK, not tightening up restrictions, but maybe applying them more forcefully 
or frequently than in the past?

I was saying (and I know it's hard to follow) that since network operators 
do route sold space currently, the only way they would not do that, IMO, is 
if there was a conflict.
Either somebody else is claiming the rights to the address space, or it is 
being advertised by somebody else. You have suggested that in that case they 
will likely view the RIR as authoritative, which I agree with.

You have suggested that the sale of legacy space from the original 
registrant leaves the buyer subject to revokation under ARIN policy, 
equivalent to a hijacker, should he fail to come to terms with ARIN on a 
transfer.

And your prescription in this event is to utilize existing policy, which in 
your view gives ARIN the right to revoke and reissue those addresses.

My point is that if we take that approach, we end up in conflict, with ARIN 
in the possible position of defending a suit for tortious interference in 
the contract between a network operator and his customer.

On the other hand, if ARIN's policy were more in alignment with the legal 
mileu, wherein huge amounts of companies have been bought and sold using 
asset sale agreements which list the IP addresses as assets to be sold, and 
where a federal bankruptcy judge found that selling them through this 
mechanism was legal, then there would likely be less legal peril for ARIN.

Sure, there will be fights over address rights ownership, like over any 
other asset, and courts will use the same tools used today, namely 
chain-of-custody review from the original owner to the current claimants.

If ARIN were to content itself with recording the transactions and not 
acting as a market regulator, I believe we would see the same effect, namely 
efficient use of addresses, with less risk than the confrontational stance 
you seem to advocate.

Regards,
Mike