[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Feb 17 16:36:14 EST 2014
Good input, thanks. Can you expand a bit on which aspects of the LRSA some of your clients find burdensome, and which aspects of RIPE 605 they find preferable? As we (and particularly the AC shepherds) work with the proposal originator on getting a clear problem statement and then figuring out which parts of prop-203 are in scope for the PDP (and which parts should be submitted through the ACSP), it would be good to have your perspective on what aspects of the RIPE policy would be most helpful for making sure that transfers from non-RSA address holders get properly recorded.
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:53 AM, "Lindsey, Marc" <mlindsey at lb3law.com> wrote:
> I advise several large legacy block holders. Some of them signed the LRSA, but many have not. For them, the burdens imposed by the LRSA outweigh the benefits. Some on the PPML have suggested that off-contract legacy holders don’t sign up with ARIN because they want to be free-riders. But the fees (and the avoidance of the fees) are not a factor in their LRSA decision.
> Based on my experience working with legacy block holders, I believe adopting a policy substantially similar to RIPE 605 (ARIN prop 203) would go a long way in harmonizing the interests of the ARIN community with the community of legacy holders that do not have formal relationships with ARIN.
> ARIN’s absolute control over additional allocations of “free” IPv4 numbers in its region has served as the primary policy enforcement mechanism. This carrot really only works on recipients that need more IPv4 numbers, and then only as long as ARIN has free numbers to give out. It doesn’t directly influence the behavior of many legacy block holders when they convey their spare numbers. Legacy holders are a major source of future IPv4 number distributions, and their relevance to the broader ARIN community will become more prominent as ARIN’s IPv4 free pool reaches depletion.
> In the secondary market context, ARIN now relies on its ability to withhold registry database updates as the primary means to extend enforcement of its current policies into private transactions between parties conveying beneficial use of IPv4 numbers. This, however, is a weak enforcement tool. Two parties can convey beneficial use of IPv4 numbers in lawful commercial transactions without updating ARIN’s registry database. But IPv4 number conveyances not recorded in the registry system produces very undesirable results – the “reality” in the registry database will not reflect operational reality, as David Conrad and others have pointed out in several posts.
> Buyers and sellers would prefer to document their conveyances in a reliable and accurate public registry, but not if the contingencies and conditions materially and adversely affect their commercial arrangement. RIPE 605/ ARIN prop 203 recognizes this reality. With a little tweaking, adopting it would go a long way in minimizing the disincentives now facing legacy holders (and entities that want to acquire their numbers) when contemplating whether updating the registry database is worth the risk of subjecting their transactions to ARIN’s approval process.
> Marc Lindsey
> Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
> 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900
> Washington, DC 20036
> Office: (202) 857-2564
> Mobile: (202) 491-3230
> Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com
> Website: www.lb3law.com
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML