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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Tue Apr 8 03:54:16 EDT 2014

On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:07 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>> Note that RFC 2050 was operative at that time, with language requiring the
>> recipient to meet the same criteria as when qualifying to receive space; i.e.
>> Even under your assertions above, legacy holders doing transfers would be
>> still be subject to needs qualification of the recipient.
> Hi John,
> I don't recall being asked to reference or agree to RFC 2050 in the
> template I submitted for my legacy block. Doubtless in part because
> RFC 2050 hadn't yet been written. RFC2050 really isn't informative in
> the manner you imply.

Bill - 
You referenced the "promise" that '"Current and old allocations and 
their DNS will be maintained with no policy changes"'...

Given the statement made at the time that (once formed) ARIN would be 
maintaining old allocations with no policy _changes_, then there has 
to be policy applicable to those old allocations, and RFC2050, having 
just been written by the current InterNIC and RIR folks (as well as 
the IANA) would be the definitive reference.  It is not credible to 
say that the maintenance of old allocations was not subject to any 
policy when the presentation mades plain that there will be (upon 
ARIN's formation) no policy changes for maintenance of old allocations.

> As I recollect the operative procedures of the day, it was: resend the
> template with the new information which, as an existing registration
> submitting a template from an authorized source, was honored without
> further review. Does your recollection of the pre-ARIN administrative
> procedures for transferring a block of network addresses differ?

Probably best to refer to RFC 2050, since your resources were managed
by the InterNIC at that time, and RFC 2050 states: "This document 
describes the IP assignment policies currently used by the Regional 
Registries to implement the guidelines developed by the IANA."  That
does seem to answer your question regarding the operative procedures
of the day.

You first argued that ARIN promised to maintain old allocations with 
no policy changes, and subsequently (upon seeing that the actual policy 
directly supports needs-assessment for transfers) changed your argument 
to say that no policy at all is applicable to old resources...  I am 
fairly you can't argue both sides at the same time, so which is it?

> This is a messy, messy court case if the matter ever comes to a head.

Actually, it's rather straightforward from ARIN's perspective (but your
argument would probably be less messy if it were only arguing a single 
side of "applicable policy for old resources" at a time...)

> Messy. Best bet for everyone involved is to arrange for the matter to
> never come to a head. Let the eventual deployment of IPv6 render it
> moot.

That is one approach, but as noted earlier on the the list, there might 
be some incidental benefit out of a party pursuing its alleged property 
rights, as it would provide certainty regarding ARIN's ability to maintain 
the registry per the wishes and policies developed by the community.  


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list