[arin-ppml] ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying requirements for IPv4 transfers

[Alexander, Daniel]

On 4/12/12 11:19 AM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

>On 4/11/2012 8:01 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
>> Here is the final 2012-1 text for the meeting in Vancouver. I am working
>> on presentation slides so let me know if you have any feedback or
>>thoughts
>> that should be clarified during the meeting discussion. This text
>>includes
>> the word "transfers" in the 12 month restriction window placed on the
>> source. This change was the result of previous mailing list discussions
>> and feedback from Staff.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Final text: 2012-1: Clarifying requirements for IPv4 transfers
>>
>> Replace Section 8.3 with
>>
>> 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region.
>>
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may
>>be
>> transferred according to the following conditions.
>>
>> Conditions on source of the transfer:
>>
>> * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the IPv4
>> address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status
>>of
>> those resources.
>
>"any dispute as to the status"? I'm sure we can always find someone who
>disputes whether or not the source entity should have transferable
>space. This should be something more concrete like a way for ARIN to
>flag blocks where the ownership is in question. (As opposed to other
>disputes, like whether they should have received that much space, or
>should be voluntarily returning it to ARIN, or whether those resources
>are being used to send spam.)

[DA] What wording would you suggest as a replacement? The intention was
focused on whether the source entity is in compliance with their
agreements with ARIN, or another RIR. The word was not intended to meet
everyones interpretation of how the space might be used.

>
>> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
>>address
>> allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a
>> transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space,
>>whichever
>> occurs first.
>
>But one may trivially create additional legal entities that can receive
>space, so this is meaningless.
>
>Also, how is "exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space" defined? Does this mean
>that if ARIN runs out, but then someone gives ARIN back a /8, I can go
>apply for it right away because the trigger happened?

[DA] I am not opposed to striking the extra condition. Should it just be
12 months no matter what? Unfortunately, the change cannot happen at this
point since we are now into the text freeze until the meeting.

>
>> * The source entity must not have received a transfer, allocation, or
>> assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to
>> the approval of a transfer request. This restriction does not include
>>M&A
>> transfers.
>
>I suppose this is a good reason to keep the lawyers employed doing M&A
>transfers, as those are more valuable assets. (More specifically, what
>this means is that the resale value I keep on my books for a /20 that I
>got within the last 12 months via transfer, allocation, or assignment is
>zero but the resale value of one received via M&A transfer is the market
>price for /20s.)
>
>It also means that I should create multiple legal entities for receiving
>assignments, so that the timer doesn't keep resetting on the other space
>I've already received.

[DA] Do you think the restrictions in this proposal serve any benefit over
the wording of the existing policy? The intent of the proposal is to offer
some protections of the free pool. Do you think section 8.3 is fine as is?

>
>And is this retroactive, so that if I've just received an allocation the
>day before the policy went into effect I'm not ineligible to be the
>source of the transfer? I suppose this is a feature for long-time
>holders, as their space is the only space that is available for
>transfer. Can we kick this up to 5 years to further restrict the sell
>side of the market? Should help keep the prices high at least.

[DA] What would your preference be? My interpretation is that it is
retroactive. 

>
>Matthew Kaufman
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>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:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.