[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-170 Transfer of Number Resources in case Bankruptcy

[Astrodog]

[snip]
>
>
> Is there anyone interested in creating a comprehensive proposal with
> me for a Resources Safe Haven/Harbor in special circumstances?
>
> With all respect,
> Drake Pallister
>

+1, and I'd be happy to help.

Such a "safe harbor" provision would also allow ARIN to allocate the
resources to an entity that *does* continue the bankrupt entity's
operations, which should help avoid the potential for re-numbering pain.
I'd be very interested to hear John's thoughts on how this might work
and if such a measure is economically feasible for ARIN.

At the risk of repeating a discussion from a few months ago, the
community consensus is clearly for needs-based allocation (I am not sure
this is desirable, but that's an entirely different discussion). Since
this is the case, all inter-party transfers should be subject to these
provisions. Again, simply acquiring the routers and equipment of a
bankrupt entity does not reflect on the IP and ASN allocation "needs" of
the buyer. In the extreme, the network "equipment" behind some
co-location providers has only nominal value, while the provider itself
has a very large allocation due to the nature of their business. It
should not be possible for me to obtain hundreds of thousands of IP
addresses, without a needs test, simply by purchasing networking
equipment with a market value equal to a low-mileage used car. As
written, the policy would allow entities to use bankruptcy proceedings
to ignore 8.3 transfer requirements. In the case of some entities, this
may be significantly cheaper than an 8.3 transfer that they may not even
qualify for.

I don't see why a bankruptcy sale of networking equipment is somehow
distinct in allocation terms from an entity selling the equipment
without entering bankruptcy. ARIN does not allow automatic transfer of
number resources in the latter case. If the purchasing entity intends to
continue to operate the network of the bankrupt entity similarly to the
way the bankrupt entity was, meeting the needs requirement should be
trivial, and the safe harbor provision proposed above would ensure that
such a transition could be performed relatively seamlessly as a standard
8.3 transfer.

--- Harrison