[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Mike Burns]

> I think we could use more concrete protections from section 12 reviews of 
> sellers than the bland assertions of the current leadership that such 
> reviews will not happen. Lawyers for the sellers will want more than that, 
> IMO.

Mike -

  Could you be specific regarding your suggestion?

  With respect to the LRSA, the language is already there
  (10.b).  What additional protections do you propose?

/John


Hi John,

My concern is for non-legacy address holders who want to sell via 8.3.
Unlike legacy holders, they are still subject to section 12 review for 
utilization, according to policy.
But what I hear from staff is that it's okay to ignore that, and go ahead 
and list "unused" addresses for sale, and ARIN will forego the section 12 
review.
That is, of course, if the seller is willing to continue the charade that 
they are really using the addresses and will renumber out only if the sale 
goes through.

That's a recipe for keeping unused RSA addresses on the sidelines.

My suggestion, of course, is to pass prop-151 to remove the specter of 
revokation audits from those under RSA, as it is already removed from legacy 
space.

If we just said that listing addresses for sale is a valid use of space, we 
would obviously allow people to hoard space they never really intend to sell 
simply by listing it.

So there is no easy way out of our current policy situation except to wink 
and say that really, those addresses should be turned back in to ARIN, but 
as long as you are selling them to somebody we can do a justification test 
on , then we promise we won't audit you for utilization, as the RSA permits.

I think the uncertainty for the seller serves to reduce market liquidity.

Regards,

Mike