[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Mike Burns]

-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:51 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> You continue to claim the existence of an unknown number of zombie 
> registrants, but even if we take that as a given, you’ve given nothing to 
> prove that these zombies would somehow magically step forward and register 
> if the needs test were removed. There are all kinds of reasons people may 
> not record transfers that go far beyond the issue of the needs test.

Correct.

A major operational network may not like the current 24-month needs-test
because of the lack of long-term certainty for access to IPv4 address space
that results, but that discomfort can be addressed by finding a supplier
and locking up options for access to number resources in the future access
if so desired.  They also have, one could imagine, the potential of 
bypassing
the registry completely, but that comes with some significant risk of trying
to enforce those theoretically obtained rights if the registrant changes 
their
story later (or turns out not to be the proper rights holder from the 
beginning,
since one did not actually go to the registry and have the asserted address
holder validated.)  From what I can tell, the vast majority of operational
network has preferred to work within the community policy, even those for
whom the current needs-based qualification in policy is problematic.

This is not the case with those who are not operating networks and only
wish to use the IP addresses for very short-term (e.g. until the IP block
reputation is ruined), in these cases, they don't intend to be using the
address blocks over the long-term; removing the needs-assessment hurdle
may not meaningfully change their desire to update the registration info

FYI,
/John


Hi John,

What you are saying is that zombie corporations are real, and are a legal 
and policy-compliant option for those who don't like the needs test.
You are also saying that corporations who don't like the needs test are also 
purchasing options on the IP address holdings of other companies, 
effectively controlling those addresses although not having them registered.

Would you also say that corporations which go this option route, and 
corporations which purchase zombie companies would actually prefer to be the 
listed registrants?  In my experience they would prefer this.

Excepting spammers, who usually lease, not purchase, space for obvious 
reasons, and who have no part in this conversation.

Regards,
Mike