[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Jimmy Hess]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:31 PM, David Huberman
<David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> or other RIRs, we have to turn to the market for our IP address needs.
> We may choose to buy more than a 2 year supply, because it may make business
> sense for us to do so.   ARIN policy, however, only allows us to take the IP

> addresses we buy and transfer the portion which represents a 2 year need.
> The rest will remain in the name of whoever sold the IP addresses to us.

This is different from the WHOIS information merely being out of date
due to neglect by the resource holder failing to update their contact
information -- this falls under willful deception:  intentionally
deceiving the RIR about the usage of resources under its
stewardship...

Specifically: It is an intentional deception to agree to "transfer
rights"  between organizations -- outside the normal manner in which
an ISP is allowed to allocate resources,  and without following the
required process or rules given by policy, Or also....  the act of
agreeing to  "report" a smaller amount as transferred,  and proceeding
as if the transfer was allowed, before requesting the transfer.

And the deception,  would clearly be intended to provide financial
gain at the cost of the community (Obtaining resources earlier, and in
larger number, than justified need requirements would allow).


This would be no different than someone with a site-license for
software writing up a contract to "sell"  100 of their product keys
without notifying the software vendor,  even though the licenses are
only allowed to be transferred through the vendor.


They are "just numbers";  however,  the registry's right (through the
community) to control the manner in which the numbers are distributed
is vital  to stewardship of the resources.

A resource holder allowing a 3rd party to intentionally take full
rights to  the resources, while representing to the registry that the
original holder is continuing to administer and use the resources
would be fraudulent, and a serious threat to the RIR's capability to
provide needs-based stewardship of the address space.

In other words, the seller  will have committed a fraud, by purporting
to sell  IP addresses,  which neither the ARIN EULA / RSA,  nor   the
RFC  (for legacy holders)   provided a way for anyone to do   ("cannot
sell what is not your property,"   the registration belongs to the
registry and is subject to their rules),   And the 8.3 application
will also have been a material misrepresentation,  and

These are circumstances under which revokation of resources by ARIN or
other RIRs might be appropriate.


Any case where it can be shown an "agreement"  to assign "rights" to
IP addresses was made privately in a manner inconsistent with policy
and not allowed by the RSA.


--
-JH