[arin-ppml] Additional modifications to Section 8.3 related to ASN's and legacy addresses

[John Curran]

On May 23, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> John,
> 
> The intention is to place the communities right to know above the
> transfer parties right to privacy with respect to legacy number
> resources and legacy ASN's. It would also be useful for you in order
> to provide all of us with relevant data as to how a market is
> operating to the standards we are setting. I know the latter is
> probably easily accomplished even with confidentiality restrictions in
> place, but the former is much harder without a policy standard. Is
> there a better way to do such a thing? In the absence of a needs test
> for legacy nr/asn's for example, I don't see a lot of need for
> confidentiality requirements.

Martin - 
 
  Implementing the policy proposal as written is quite possible, 
  but I wanted to highlight that providing this information to 
  the recipient happens presently and the recipient who does not
  qualify has ability to share this information with current holder
  as desired (or if required by any agreement between the parties.)

  ARIN providing this information directly to the current address
  holder may require us sharing information about the applicant 
  which is highly sensitive and to do so at the exact moment that 
  applicant/intended recipient and current address holder are 
  potentially ending their relationship.

  ARIN providing this information only the applicant/intended 
  recipient and having the intended recipient keep everyone in 
  the pending transaction informed because its required per their
  transaction document would be administratively easier and not 
  having ARIN providing one party's detailed network information 
  to another.  I do not know, however, if that approach meets your 
  policy goals; it may not be an effective option depending on the
  problem you're trying to address.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN