[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Lindsey, Marc <mlindsey at lb3law.com> wrote:
> The policy proposal addresses many of the current “tensions” arising out of
> the legacy resource trading market.  It recognizes, in policy, the practical
> reality that attempting to extend ARIN’s existing policies designed for
> numbers under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has direct control) to legacy
> numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct
> control) has its limits and is currently producing (possibly) unintended
> consequences that I believe are undesirable for the community.
>
>
>
> E.g., Increasing inaccuracies in the WHOIS databases; and limiting ARIN
> members’ access to “off-contract” legacy numbers (while still remaining
> compliant with policy) due to burdens imposed on both the source and the
> recipient under the current 8.3 transfer policy (where the needs
> justification requirements impose a cap of 24 months’ supply that supplants
> the recipient’s own business judgment on how best to use its capital to
> manage  the risks to its business presented by the depletion of the RIR free
> pool of unallocated IPv4 numbers).
>
>
>
> I like many aspects of the proposal, but I do have some questions for Martin
> and others about it.
>
>
>
> 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements
>
>
>
>     Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number
> resources and ASN's are waived.
>
>
>
> [[What’s your view on whether the recipient should be required to execute an
> RSA or LRSA as a condition for ARIN to update the database where the
> requirements of 8.4.4-8.4.5 are otherwise met?]]



My expectation is that ARIN would develop a lightweight services
contract in order to administer this policy that focuses exclusively
on providing the registration service. Period.



>
> 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation
>
>
>
> No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody
> demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the legitimate
> holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the resource. Upon
> confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, ARIN will certify
> that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain this certification on file
> for future reference.
>
>
>
> [[Very good addition to the process.   Who do you think should perform the
> chain of custody validation to satisfy this requirement?  Is this an ARIN
> direct responsibility, something that would be performed by a qualified
> third-party under certain standards, or both?]]
>

I believe it is a shared function of ARIN and third parties. ARIN has
oversight, the third parties do the work.

> 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications
>
> ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications or are
> deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for transfer.
>
> Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned
> Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be made available to the
> public.
>
>
>
> [[This one concerns me.   Specifically, the part about reclaiming resources
> that fail the chain of custody search.  It may be that the requestor isn’t
> the rightful holder, but some other entity may still have a strong claim to
> the numbers.  In addition, many who make claims to legacy numbers are acting
> in good faith, but may just not be able to sufficiently demonstrate via
> supporting documentation an unbroken chain of custody.
>


I agree that this is problematic. My intention though is that ARIN
does not reclaim legacy resources for re-distribution if the rightful
holder of a resource can be located. I also believe that the community
has a right to know about disputed resources hence while the dispute
is being resolved the community is notified in case they have
something to add to the process, one way or the other. I would not
intend to preclude success by the addition to the list. Just public
notice.


> This could chill the willingness of some legacy holders (those with less
> than perfect, but still reasonable, claims to the legacy numbers) to use the
> ARIN process for fear that they will lose their numbers in the event that
> the chain of custody validation fails. Numbers in this category may either
> be traded outside the ARIN process or simply remain dormant and unused.

That would be counter to what I hope to achieve with such a proposal.
I think though that ARIN has an interest to make sure that "rightful
holders" are granted their resources and at the same time the
communities registration database is accurate. This discussion has
been insightful. I believe I understand some things that didn't make
sense before like why we have never engaged in a mass reclamation of
resources, etc.


> Like a typical critic, I see the flaws in 8.4.6 but I don’t yet have a
> better alternative to propose that balances the need to re-purpose abandoned
> numbers without extinguishing the rights entities have in their legacy
> numbers.   A fair, independent, and transparent processes to appeal
> reclamation decisions and resolve competing claims to contested legacy
> numbers prior to declaring them abandoned might help.  I’m interested in
> other’s thoughts on this point.]]


Thanks for the feedback. It is very helpful.

Best,

-M<