[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

>  
>         Yes… But what assurance do we have that removal of needs basis would somehow magically get more of these transfers recorded in whois?
>  
> Owen, I am not appealing to magic. I am applying basic business logic that I think most people on the list understand. If you buy a real estate, you generally want the deed published. Sure there are some who don’t, for one reason or another, but the vast majority do want their ownership registered in the authoritative list.

But IP addresses are not real estate and many of the concerns expressed look much more like the trading of stock in a hostile takeover. In those transactions, there are, basic business logic reasons to hide the transaction(s) for some time and register them at a later date.

Timing can be important. You are making multiple assertions.

Bottom line, yes, the people you are considering in your proposal are likely to register their transfers absent needs test.

What you continue to refuse to acknowledge is that they are not a complete set of those who would transfer address space and many of the others may or may not register.

I argue that the ones you are describing also represent a tiny fraction of the improperly or unregistered utilization out there today, so therefore your proposal does not really solve a (significant) problem, but creates many more.

>  
>  
>      You think that offering someone lots of money for a transaction and asking them to work with you on the recording date of the         transaction with the RIR is difficult? I don’t. I don’t think it would be hard at all.
>  
> Owen, there is no “someone”. There are tens of thousands of address rights owners, with a constantly fluctuating amount of underutilized space which might be for sale.  From the perspective of one who is actively seeking out sellers, the idea that you could not only find enough of them, but organize them silently towards a massive single transactional event is laughable.  Most of the large holders are unsuprisingly large organizations. Getting them to march together in this way for this purpose is inconceivable. But we can agree to disagree on this likelihood while understanding that limiting needs-free transfers to one small amount per year like a /20 would preclude this eventuality.

If offering someone that deal will succeed, then offering several someones that same deal is also likely to succeed. You don’t have to organize them, all you have to do is get them to agree to let you take care of the registration process at a later unspecified date and not to disclose the transaction until then. The idea that this is difficult is what is absurd.

>  
>  
>  
>     Someone who doesn’t want their actions publicly known for a variety of reasons. This happens all the time with hostile takeovers as was previously noted.
>  
>  
> Owen, nobody is denying that there are other reasons why people avoid registration. No proposal on the table seeks to address those issues.

Correct. However, you continuously state that this proposal is a panacea for the inaccuracies in whois, so I will continue to point out that this is not, in fact, true.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140612/826c041c/attachment.htm>