[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[John Curran]

On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> 
> But in the case at hand, holder X writes a letter to non-holder Y saying "sure, I'm ok with you advertising these addresses for the next year"
> 
> If holder X then sues non-holder Y and presents the ARIN registration as evidence, that letter isn't going to make this a "cookie-cutter violation" any more. And further, in the case at hand, holder X *doesn't* sue non-holder Y... instead a bunch of relying parties, including law enforcement, just can't see who really has the legal use of the addresses, because ARIN refused to update their records because some arbitrary policies weren't followed.

Matthew -
 
   The example you cite isn’t actually a transfer; the address holder “X” still controls
    the address block in the registry.   It’s not even clear that the address holder “X” 
    intends to ever transfer the address block.  

    Law enforcement will inquire to “X" address holder regarding various matters, but 
    presumably handling such remains their obligation since they have opted not to 
    transfer the block to party “Y” in accordance with community developed policy.
    You may not like the registry policies, but they are supported by the community
    which makes use of the registry and hence come along with benefits of unique
    identifiers from the registry.
    
Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN