[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Mike Burns]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Steven Ryerse
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> Even one transfer that doesn't update the database is one too many

Playing devils advocate then, I take it you are in favor of moving
to rescind (and then re-issue) any IP Numbers for which the
whois validation has not been confirmed (by the yearly POC
validation emails)?  And perhaps with an officer attestation
saying that the numbers of fully utilized per RSA?

I will look forward to your policy proposal to put teeth into
whois validation.

Gary


Hi Gary,

The two are not equal propositions. Your proposal to rescind non validated 
space, like removing needs, will indeed tend towards more registry accuracy. 
But your proposal is fraught with legal peril for ARIN, certainly in legacy 
space, whereas removing the needs test reduces legal peril, in the opinion 
of this non-lawyer, because it makes the transfer of address rights more 
closely comport with the existing legal framework which deals with the 
transfer of valuable items.

Steven and I have expressed a desire for more Whois accuracy and there is a 
proposal on the table (2014-14) which I think will tend towards more Whois 
accuracy while at the same time protecting against market manipulation and 
reducing the need for ARIN staff to spend team time doing needs tests for 
small transfers where the buyer is already displaying his need with his 
dollars.

Zombies registrants in Whois are real, there are restrictions on identifying 
them, their continued existence is facilitated by the needs test.
We need to stop worrying about fictional billionaire fraudsters and start 
considering whether any undemonstrated benefits of retaining the needs test 
for small transfers are worth the undemonstrated costs. To that end some who 
had been against any relaxing of the needs test have moderated their 
positions, with Owen offering the additional caveat that the policy have a 
sunset, in the hopes that we may garner more information on the potential 
for abuse and the potential for registration benefits.

And I think McTim's /24 represents a seismic change, thank you McTim.

Hopefully those who support a complete removal of the needs-test for 
transfers will also offer support for the more limited 2014-14.

Regards,
Mike