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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue May 24 10:11:56 EDT 2011

On May 24, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> 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?

No, not really.

> 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.

In which case I don't see a problem developing that requires your policy.

> 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.

Yes. As ARIN would currently do upon learning of such a transfer if I understand things correctly.
As I said, they would first approach the original registrant and confirm that they had released the
addresses. Then they would contact the recipient and see if an 8.2 or 8.3 transfer could be
processed. Failing that, I believe ARIN has an obligation to treat the resources as abandoned
under current policy.

It would be great if John would comment on whether my understanding is correct.

> 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.

We haven't ended up in a conflict where ARIN didn't prevail so far. Further, I don't see how
controlling records in their own database can be construed as tortious interference in
someone else's contract unrelated to ARIN. Especially when they refused to cooperate
with ARIN in updating the records and knew full well about the likely outcome before
they engaged in the contract.

> 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.

Again, it's completely and utterly unclear what the federal judge thought the assets in this regard actually constituted. Further, the judge made it
very clear that the transfer was subject to the terms of the registration services agreement between ARIN and Micr0$0ft. It seems to me that the
federal bankruptcy judge ruled very clearly that ARIN did have authority over the registration of the transfer.

As such, I believe current policy is completely in line with the current legal milieu and there is no need to grant additional rights based on your
bogey-man argument.

> 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.

Looks to me like the court used ARIN as much as anything else and clearly recognized ARIN's authority over registrations of IP addresses.

> 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.

I believe you are entirely mistaken in this and I have presented plenty of evidence to back up that belief, including historical
examples of the behavior I have predicted under such a system. You have yet to present any evidence to refute my claims,
instead relying on the idea that continuing to recite your belief will somehow make it come true.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list