[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResource Holders

[John Curran]

On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:43 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> You appear to be assuming that if ARIN denies the transfer, the transfer doesn't occur.

Correct.

>> Hence, my suggestion to make such a survey more specific with
>> respect to prioritization of needs-based transfers vs operational 
>> usefulness of registry data.
> 
> Again, for me, the issue isn't about needs-based transfer per se, it's more general than that.  Needs-based constraints on transfer in the context of legacy addresses is a post facto imposition of policy on resource holders who have no contractual obligation to abide by (or even knowledge of) that policy.

David - 
 
  I'm sorry - you are mischaracterizing the needs-based transfer 
  policy as a "post facto imposition of policy" by ARIN.  The needs-
  based requirement for transfers existed before ARIN; the ARIN 
  community has only been sustaining the existing practice:

  RFC 2050 (November 1996) is fairly clear on this matter - 

  "   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."

  Since you were a coauthor of RFC2050, perhaps you can explain 
  what is supposed to happen when the approval described above 
  does not occur?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN