[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2

[Astrodog]

On 06/20/2012 06:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I am not sure how the IPv6 situation should be handled, as there is not a good way to prevent the transfer if it's allowed under 8.2... the selling entity simply includes some random bit of networking gear that can be claimed to be "[using] the transferred resources from the current registrant", which is verbiage I'm not a huge fan of.
>>
> The flaw in both this argument and your proposal is the assumption that ARIN would accept the sale of a single router as being the infrastructure justifying an entire block of addresses. Since this simply is not true, all of the conclusions based on this absurd supposition are also invalidated.
>
> Opposed as written. This is yet another attempt to move ARIN further from being a registry with policies and closer to being an auction house and an Ayn Rand free-for-all.
>
> Owen
>

The idea behind the policy is to remove the ambiguity and put all 
transfers under the 8.3 criteria.

An alternate way to handle this would be to have 8.2 simply read that 
for transactions occurring under M&A, IPv6 allocation transfer, in 
addition to IPv4 and ASNs, may occur subject to the same requirements as 
any other 8.3 transfer.

In addition, it aims to clarify what happens during M&A transactions to 
LRSA or Legacy resources. They are treated exactly the same way any 
other resource is handled. The current wording of 8.2 offers little 
guidance on what happens, which is where a lot of the contention 
regarding legacy addresses seems to be occurring. I don't see why there 
is special treatment for transfers under M&A.

Asking ARIN to divine what two parties are trying to do (M&A or 
specified recipient) seems pointless when we can simply have one method 
by which addresses are transferred, regardless of why the parties are 
engaging in the transaction.



--- Harrison