[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justificationon8.3 Specified Transfers
mike at nationwideinc.com
Fri Feb 17 12:39:05 EST 2012
>As I noted in the reply to that article, ARIN's ability to maintain
the registry accordingly to community policy has not been impacted
by any attempts by parties to the contrary; if there's a disconnect,
it is not in the manner in which ARIN is operating.
The disconnect is ARIN's policy of not updating Whois unless a transferee of
legacy space, under no contract with ARIN, voluntarily decides to jump
through ARIN's hoops.
Thus the danger that an actual legal transfer of address rights is effected,
but ARIN's Whois still has old and irrelevant data in it.
> as an aside, one might consider instead what precisely is being conveyed
> if it supposed to
be a number block which is unique with respect to others in the registry,
actually isn't complying with the rules of the registry needed to keep it
I have considered this question, my answer is that what is being conveyed
are the exclusive address rights granted to the original registrant and then
transferred with a legal chain of custody to the ultimate holder of the
>To follow up one point: you note that the 'disconnect' is with respect to
legacy addresses, are you proposing that the elimination of needs-based
justification be just for legacy addresses, or all address blocks, ARIN-
issues and legacy?
I designed a policy proposal with the intended benefit of removing
needs-based justification policies for all address holders who had held the
addresses for more than a year, Prop-151, in its original incarnation. My
goal was to bridge the legal divide between those with a contract with ARIN
and those legacy address rights holders without one, by liberalizing
transfer policies so that they were the same, effectively providing an
incentive to bring legacy holders under some kind of RSA, while at the same
time creating a dynamic market in IPv4 addresses which could be fueled with
supply by both legacy and RSA address rights holders' stocks. This proposal
also capped needs free transfers at a /12, preventing speculation and market
cornering, and suggested the removal of ARIN's revokation rights for
utilization from the RSA. The free pool was protected by requiring at least
a 12 month holding period before addresses could be sold by those who
received them from the free pool, and prevented those who sold addresses on
the transfer market from dipping back into the free pool.
However I would certainly support any proposal with the more limited aim of
removing needs-requirements from 8.3 Transfers of Legacy Space, even though
it would serve to perpetuate the "class structure" that currently divides
Legacy and RSA address rights owners, and further de-incentivize the
bringing of Legacy Space under RSA.
More information about the ARIN-PPML