[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

It seems like you are trying to conflate spammers and botnets with companies 
who wish to avoid registration simply because of the needs policy.

We can all agree that spammers and botnets do not seek registration for 
reasons other than the needs test, no policy proposal is directed at that 
issue.

To your point about buying IP address options which are opaque to Whois, my 
answer is that this is only happening due to the needs test.
Same thing with zombie corporations, the existence of which are driven by 
the needs test. Spammers don't buy zombie corporations, because they know 
they will damage the only asset. Instead they hijack or lease, two 
completely separate issues, neither of which is addressed by a current 
policy proposal.

Regards,
Mike







-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:38 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Owen DeLong ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

On Jun 12, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> 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.

No, not at all.  What I am saying is that we have seen address blocks
hijacked by organizations (or routed via false LOA) which are only
going to use the address space for a short-period.

> 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.

Are you suggesting that ARIN should become involved in a private contract
between two organizations that doesn't involve transfer of the registration
of an address block, but only future potential of same?

I can enter into an agreement with you that you will not sell a book (or
your car, or your laptop) to another party within first coming to me; that
is likely to be seen as valid contractual agreement that does not involve
any other parties.

> 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.

I have no idea; you would expect that they'd perform a transfer in 
accordance
with community policy if they preferred that route.

> Excepting spammers, who usually lease, not purchase, space for obvious 
> reasons,

Exactly to Owen's point... there are parties which do not desire accurate
registration for their own reasons, and these parties are quite willing to
permanently transfer address space if it meets their needs.

> and who have no part in this conversation.

That is correct only to the extent that there is not a high overlap between
those who wish to bypass the community policy and those who wish to operate
various spam & botnet services.  I imagine there are parties that want to
interconnect with the other service providers for legitimate business but
still not follow their policies, but such disingenuous behavior is 
frequently
shown by those abuse the network.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

=