[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out (was:Re:Against 2013-4)

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> At least at this point in time, the number of transfers is relatively low,
> the block sizes also, and  I think the staff at the RIRs would certainly
> detect attempts to evade the needs test through transfers to linked shell
> corporations.

Hi Mike,

That poses a practical problem. When is a legal entity linked? Even
the courts struggle with determining whether one legal entity is
operating under control of another, and that's after subpoenas,
discovery and comparable activities that you propose ARIN not be
allowed to evaluate for small transfers.

Are they linked if one is a wholly owned subsidiary? Even if they're
in completely different businesses? What if neither is a subsidiary of
the other but they have the same owners? Is ARIN even allowed to ask
who the private owners are? What if one company is owned by Joe Smith
and the other by Bob Jones, but Smith is operating under contract to
Jones for address management services?

Even if ARIN can manage to detect the behavior, they have to follow
policy with specificity and consistency lest they create big legal
troubles for themselves. How do you match a policy statement to that
morass without either creating large loopholes or stepping back to a
level of abstraction which isn't actionable?


A few years ago the BoT tried to tackle the linked-organizations
problem and got smacked down hard. It may be intractable, obstructing
any policy which depends on it being solvable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004