[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Sun Feb 23 15:38:33 EST 2014


This is an example of how policies penalize legitimate organizations needing to do legitimate transfers.  In my opinion the Polices have swung so far towards preventing abuse they impact legitimate transfers.  In the publicly traded company world, each quarter is like a year and a year is like 4 years to them since they have to publish their quarterly results 4 times a year.  For them a year is an eternity.  Also, the Internet itself has allowed business functions that once took months or years to take days or weeks which is todays reality.  Some of y’all think 12 months or even 18 months is a short time but that doesn’t align with the reality of today’s business world that the Internet has helped foster.

Although I don’t like abuse either, I am definitely AGAINST raising the hold period to be longer than a year.  If it has to be a year then at minimum, there should be a procedure defined in the policy that an organization can appeal to the ARIN CFO (or whoever) to get an exception for a shorter timeframe – even as short as 30 days.  If what the organization is doing is legitimate and the ARIN CFO will approve it, then the 12 month hold rule should be waived.  My 2 cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks℠

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:43 PM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

It makes option 3 slightly more palatable, but I would still prefer option 2 as described below.

Owen

On Feb 22, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:


There is another restriction already in 8.3, which reads "The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first."  In light of that, do you still see a problem with #3?

-Scott

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
Several options are being discussed regarding this proposal:

1. Use the existing last sentence as is and ask ARIN staff to be particularly watchful for seeming abuse and to bring such back to the community through regular Policy Experience Reports.  There was discussion about this option suggesting that by the time abuse was recognized and reported, and given limited existing free pool stocks and the extended policy development cycle....this option is mute.

2. Remove the clause 'and its subsidiaries' and or modify it in such a way as to mitigate the risk of a laundering of addresses through fraudulent transfers, but potentially limit the utility of organizations who may have complex organizations structures in use internationally.

3. Take an alternative tack and simply restrict the Inter-RIR re-org transfer of the 'recently issued block' only, allowing other existing blocks to be transferred without restriction by recent block acquisition. This alternative seems to have been expressed and supported in the recent Atlanta Public Policy Consultation.

It is my opinion that option 3 is perilous in that it allows a large resource holder to sell off their address space out of region while backfilling from the ARIN free pool.

As such, I am much more comfortable with option 2. One set of language that was suggested which I like is:

“…subsidiaries having been operational for a minimum of 18 months.”

While this might not prevent all possible subsidiary-based rinse-repeat abuse scenarios, it would at least prevent the obvious subsidiary created for this purpose scenario and certainly provides better protections than proposal number 3.

I think option 1 is probably an unfair burden for the ARIN staff and makes policy vague in a way that would be difficult, if not impossible, to reliably enforce and may be even harder to defend in the event of litigation. This is strictly my own opinion as a member of the community and I have not discussed the matter with legal council or even the other members of the AC.

Owen


_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140223/862b6ab6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140223/862b6ab6/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list