[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResourceHolders

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Feb 13 17:08:00 EST 2014

The problem with your California analogy of course is that even though the car (i.e. Legacy Block) might have been titled in California originally (i.e. NSF), the sales transaction might have happened in another state or even another country (i.e. private transaction completely outside ARIN) and California can't say after the fact that they won't recognize the sale of the car as the car was sold legally and therefore California can't somehow void or disavow the transaction.  

Maybe the NSF or congress could void those Legacy transactions but ARIN doesn't have the legal authority to void them or declare them somehow to be invalid.  

I think that the new RIPE policy is acknowledging this reality and I think ARIN adopting the same identical policy makes sense because it would allow the coming together of Legacy holders and ARIN allocations holders which I think is in everyone's interest.

Note that I would expect ARIN to be able to request and receive proof of a completed transaction before they update their database with the new information.  

Steven L Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:51 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResourceHolders

On Feb 12, 2014, at 5:43 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> John,
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:13 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> "The importance of maintaining accurate records in the ARIN database is recognized as ARIN's principal task."
>> Alas, your very clear formulation won't be very informative, since 
>> the registry is accurate even after a denied transfer
> You appear to be assuming that if ARIN denies the transfer, the transfer doesn't occur.
> Do you really believe that?

By definition, that is true as far as the transfer of the registration.

However, I believe at this point you and John are talking about two different things.

You are talking about the transfer of the use of the numbers as IP addresses routed on the internet.

John is talking about the transfer of the registration of the addresses within the RIR system.

Yes, the two can happen independently of one another.

You are arguing (if I understand correctly) that when the transfer of usage occurs without the transfer of registration, that is a bad thing and you believe that there should be no limits on the transfer of registration in order to prevent this dichotomy from developing.

I don’t happen to agree with your position. As noted in earlier threads, transfers of the use of number resources which occur contrary to registry party are unable to be registered.


You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list