[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justificationon8.3 Specified Transfers

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

Answers inline.



>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, 
but
actually isn't complying with the rules of the registry needed to keep it 
unique?

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 
address rights.


>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.

Regards,
Mike