[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Astrodog wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Astrodog wrote:
>>>> I agree that needs-based justification makes sense for "new" allocations from ARIN.
>>>> Inter-registrant transfers, on the other hand, make less sense to me.
>>>> ….
>>>> I think it is important to examine the two sets of circumstances separately.
>>> 
>>> Just for those who might be counting, I disagree entirely. I see an allocation as an allocation, no matter the source. I think that all recipients of allocations should have the exact same policy applied to them.
>>> 
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> That would be ideal, but simply isn't the case. A transfer wherein
> someone fills out the paperwork, and pays a nominal fee to ARIN, and
> then has the allocation within the RSA is very different from one
> where they pay an unrelated third party some sum to transfer some or
> all of the rights to an allocation, plus the paperwork, RSA, and
> nominal fee.
> 

From an addressing policy perspective, how, exactly is it different?

Remember, we're talking about policy here. The fees paid to ARIN and
most certainly any compensation which may or may not exist in the
transfers between two other parties is utterly and completely unrelated
to the policy.

We very carefully and deliberately crafted 8.3 to separate those issues.

> In the latter, any number of conditions may apply, in addition to the
> registrant's RSA. For example, an entity could perform an 8.3
> transfer, on the condition that some transit exchange occurs as
> well... if the transit exchange fails to occur, or something else
> breaches the agreement to the point where it becomes void, the
> receiving entity becomes obligated to transfer the resources back to
> the original party. Strictly speaking, under 8.3, this can't happen,
> because there is no guarantee ARIN would allow the return (and, in
> fact, in may be prohibited). This limits IP-related transactions to
> "instant" cash or equity transfers, which is exactly the sort of
> transaction speculators would attempt to monetize. By removing the
> needs test, you allow organizations to create long term agreements
> around the use of IP addresses, instead of forcing them to "buy" the
> allocation outright, at once.
> 

I would say that this behooves the seller to understand the policies
covering the transfer of addresses. Generally, if you're transferring
addresses based on a transit contract, this would be done through
the normal ISP allocation process and not through 8.3 anyway, so,
it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me that you would
do so.

I believe it is our policy intent to limit transfers to being those which,
other than any independent compensation agreements that ARIN
is not party to, are generally aligned with Allocations/Assignments
as ARIN would make them if they were requested from the free pool.

The fact that someone may run off the rails and do something different
in the current environment is a corner case that I would support policy
to limit or eliminate, but, I certainly don't think it's a reason to abandon
good existing policy when things are working as intended.

Owen

> --- Harrison.