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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Tue May 10 14:22:16 EDT 2011

On May 10, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> Can you elaborate some?
> If I were allocated a /18 in 2002 order to host websites, and I have sold or lost the customers but retain the corporation, could my resources be reviewed and revoked per NRPM section 12 without recourse to the RSA section 8?

Yes, see below. 

> My reading of it says no, section 12 does not give ARIN the right to request a return for under-utilization only.
> I think this is the salient section, 12.4:
> "Organizations found by ARIN to be materially out of compliance with current ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return resources as needed to bring them into (or reasonably close to) compliance."
> In my example, what current ARIN policy would I be materially out of compliance with?
> ARIN policy talks quite a bit about utilization, but always in the context of a new allocation, not the utilization of a prior allocation outside that context.

While the criteria are provided in context of a new allocation, the actual
IP assignment or allocation remains "valid as long as the criteria continues 
to be met" (RFC 2050).  The RFC 2050 guidance is specifically included per
NRPM 4.1.7 (IPv4 General Principles).

I'm unaware of ARIN performing reclamation against any organization acting 
in good faith under such circumstances, but it would technically be a valid 
course of action. 

> Of course, the RSA section 8 would provide this authority as a result of its "compliance with intended purposes" language.


> My concern was that I thought section 12 was toothless in this regard, so I left it unmodified in my proposal and instead modified the RSA, which I now know is not possible via this policy proposal mechanism.
> However, in order to have a viable proposal to eliminate needs requirements for transfers, like APNIC, it is clear that whatever agreement is required of transfer recipients must not have utilization review language in it, or it would vitiate the whole idea of needs-free transfers, and the whole idea of booking every transaction in whois to maintain its integrity.

Best to make explicit via a policy proposal which states the goal.  We
will amend the agreements accordingly if the draft policy supported by 
the community and adopted.

> If I make a proposal to change the RSA to remove the language about "intended purposes" via the ARIN ACSP as you indicate, can I make my policy proposal to change NRPM 8.3 linked, or contingent upon, action to change the RSA? Are there any examples of prior policy proposals which required changes to agreements that I can use as guidance?

Nothing is needed other than a simple statement in the policy rationale
that notes that changes to the registration service agreements may be 
necessary if the policy is adopted.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list