[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification
astrodog at gmail.com
Mon Feb 27 17:35:44 EST 2012
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.
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML