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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Feb 20 07:12:04 EST 2012

On Feb 20, 2012, at 5:28 AM, Astrodog wrote:

> Personally, I agree with this assessment. However, it isn't how most
> registrants view things.
> If the assertion is that IPs are *not* an asset, it seems like ARIN
> should be reclaiming the space. If someone doesn't need the space
> anymore (and, thus, starts looking for a buyer under 8.3), this would
> seem like prima facae evidence that they no longer meet the need
> requirements anyway.

"IPs" are an ambiguous reference.  If the question is whether Internet
numbers are freely held personal property, then ARIN's answer is "no".
Address holders do have certain rights (such as exclusive right to be 
the registrant of the address space within the ARIN registry database,
as well as the exclusive right to transfer the registration of the space), 
but those rights intersect other rights (e.g. the community's right of 
visibility to the public portion) with respect to the same registrations.  
The policies adopted in the region are the basis by which we will manage 
the registry and hence the intersection of these rights.

Rights can be often be considered an asset of an estate but that does not 
mean that the underlying item is a form of "free and clear" property, only 
that something (often limited in nature) has been transferred. 

> Is there community support for the elimination of 8.3 transfers
> entirely, to be replaced with a more aggressive audit system for need
> testing, post-registration, so that the space may be reclaimed?

This has been considered over the years, but does not fit well with ARIN's
formation, wherein ARIN indicated that the existing registrations at the time
would be maintained per the status quo. Now, it's recognized that you can't 
both form an organization for the management of number resources in the region 
via community developed policy, and simultaneously not ever change policy for 
existing registrations, but we'll actually done a reasonable job of striking 
exactly that balance.

Changes which affect the entire registry (e.g. establishment of policies
governing visibility and fields within registrations) have been adopted
without significant issue.  Policies which add new functions (such as the
specified transfer policy) have also been adopted and effectively expand 
on the options available to all resource holders.  We have worked hard not
to create policy of undue burden, but will and do change existing policy 
for all number resources holders when it becomes important to do so in 
further of the mission (e.g. addition of abuse POC, POC validation etc.)

The community could consider a policy for audit and reclamation of resource 
holders, however, it would not been in keeping with the expectations set 
for existing resources holders when ARIN was formed, and protection against 
reclamation for lack of utilization was put in the legacy RSA specifically 
to recognize this fact.  Recently, in recognition that a functional market 
provides adequate incentive for getting underutilized resources back into use, 
this same language which precludes reclamation due to lack of utilization was 
put into the standard RSA (thus leaving very few actual differences between 
the terms of the agreements.)

You indicate that "this isn't how most registrants view things", but I would
disagree; we've seen significant use of the specified transfer policy to date
(particularly as ARIN still has available IPv4 number resources to issue) and
nearly every service provider in the region has contractually agreed to the 
number resource policies developed by the community.  I am aware that some 
parties who haven't been receiving new number resources over the proceeding
years (and hence aren't necessarily under an ARIN RSA of any form) are unhappy
with the limitations for monetization of their underutilized resources under 
the present specified transfer policy; I universally direct them to this forum 
(the Public Policy Mailing List) to raise their concerns.

John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list