[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 (Sandra Brown)

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:33 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>> .... or, at the absolute most, a reading of RFC 2050 with all ambiguity construed in the registrants' most favorable light.
>
> Accepting the point above for sake of argument, here's the relevant
> section of RFC 2050 -
>
>   " 7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be
>        approved by the regional registries.  The party trying to obtain
>        the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
>        requesting an IP address directly from the IR."
>
> I do not see a lot of ambiguity here with respect to requiring those
> receiving addresses to meet the same criteria as those being issued
> address space, nor with respect to the requirement that the RIRs must
> approve the transfer.  Please elucidate and construe is you see fit.


Hi John,

Plenty of ambiguity. Which criteria must be met for the legacy
registration? The current RIR criteria? The criteria as practiced by
InterNIC when ARIN made its promise? The criteria as practiced by
InterNIC when the legacy registration was made? Some criteria laid out
directly in RFC2050? If you accept RFC 2050 as controlling, one of the
RIRs must approve the transfer. Not necessarily ARIN. But in the
context of ARIN's promise regarding legacy registrations, it's not
obvious which criteria ARIN is expected to apply when evaluating the
request. And at least some of the candidates boil down to: are you
really you? Ok. Transfer approved.

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