[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....
kkargel at polartel.com
Thu Sep 1 11:32:56 EDT 2011
I have not looked this up, so forgive me if my memory is faulty, but isn't there a grace period in the event of a section 12 review where the user has "X" amount of time to appeal and/or prove they are using the address space?
Wouldn't this grace period be sufficient protection for a "sale"?
I find it hard to believe that ARIN would review and summarily revoke a registration without some due process that would give the user time to work things out.
If a user is not utilizing an IP block, and then they find out that they cannot sell the block, it seems to me that the block *should* return to the common pool.
I think things are pretty good the way they are.
Just my two cents..
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Mike Burns
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:50 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....
> >When STLS was being developed, the AC was very careful to specify that
> >merely listing resources for sale on STLS or through another medium was
> >not in itself to subject a resource holder to a section 12 review or any
> >procedure for revocation. Neither, however, was such listing intended to
> >provide a safe harbor against ARIN proceeding with any such action
> >based on other independent data or investigation.
> >In other words, while we don't want listing your addresses to flag you
> >an audit, we also don't want to create a situation where merely listing
> >addresses gives you an exemption from policy.
> Hi Owen,
> In the real world, the real corporate world at least, the idea of every
> workstation having a real public IP address went away more than a decade
> for the most part.
> Same thing in the residential world.
> In fact, my guess is that you would only see such profligate use of IP
> addresses in public or academic environments.
> It's only a guess based on my experience, perhaps some more feedback is
> As far as the idea of people returning address space to ARIN for community
> purposes, how's that working out for ARIN?
> You have merely restated the problem I elucidated with John.
> You want to maintain the belief system that addresses are to be returned
> disuse per the RSA, and that enforcement of that is incorporated as a
> section 12 review/revokation.
> Yet 8.3 allows holders to sell addresses.
> The conundrum of course is that in order to comply with policy, the seller
> has to pretend to be using the addresses efficiently so as to preclude the
> threat of section 12.
> If the seller chooses to thus pretend in order to advertise his available
> space, his lawyer, reading the RSA, is likely to advise him that he runs
> risk of losing that space to a section 12 review.
> His shareholders, then, (even if it is one person holding the shares),
> advise not to advertise the addresses, instead to hold on and wait for
> policy change, or else to process a transaction in the dark so as not to
> engender the section 12 review.
> Neither of these last options is desirable if we truly are seeking to
> unused addresses into use and comply with the goals of conservation and
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML