[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Tue Jun 2 13:04:26 EDT 2015


I think the term "transfer" is being overloaded in this discussion.

In some cases "transfer" means an above board transfer that complies with
ARIN policy,
and is properly documented.

In some cases "transfer" means an end run around justified need and ARIN
policy by making
other arrangements with the rights holder to use their addresses now.

In some cases "transfer" means making some arrangements with the rights
holder to promise
to make addresses available in the future when compliance with ARIN policy
exists.

Clearly designating if you are talking about an above board transfer, a
below board transfer,
or a future would clarify things.



I think the heart of the matter is if it is good for the community for ARIN
to recognize, legitimize,
and reduce the risk of injury to organizations that participate in below
board transfers that lack
proper justified use, or futures that currently lack proper justified use.

Or if it is good for ARIN to not recognize, legitimize, and not reduce the
risk of injury to organizations
that participate in below board transfers that lack proper justified use,
or futures that currently lack
proper justified use.

The former would encourage more need-less transfers, reduce uncertainty for
organizations that
want to hold more addresses than they can currently justify.

The latter would continue discourage more needless transfers, maintain
current uncertainty for
organizations that want to hold more addresses then they can currently
justify.

Certainly in the current environment, some organizations have limited the
amount of investment
they are willing to make in below board transfers and futures that they
cannot currently justify due
to the current level of risk.
Certainly other organizations have avoided such transactions altogether.

If this risk was reduced, or this practice legitimized such as with a
need-less transfer policy, then
certainly this practice would increase.

There does not seem to be a way to increase uncertainty for organizations
that want to hold more
addresses then they can currently justify, nor an ability to completely
stop this behavior or further
discourage this behavior.



Also with returns possible, there is always the possibility of a free pool,
unless we designate all
returned space go into the pool for supporting IPv6 or create a pool for
only new entrants to get a
/22 and designate it goes there... But that becomes wasteful as soon as we
exceed a time horizon
longer than wide spread IPv6 adoption.


The basic question is if it is good for the community to encourage
organizations that are willing to
spend more cash now to get preferential access to IP addresses for
potential future need over
organizations that need address now (or in a two year time horizon)?


___Jason

On Jun 2, 2015 11:48 AM, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> First a diversion:
>
>
>
> I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs
> testing today.
>
> It should be obvious to anybody that **in the presence of a free pool**
> that without needs testing transfers, you effectively remove needs testing
> altogether.
>
> Otherwise someone could get addresses, transfer them away to a needless
> entity, and repeat the process to drain  the pool. A non-starter,
> obviously.
>
>
>
> So of course we needed to needs-test transfers then, but the argument
> today is in the context of a drained free pool, and so the logic behind
> RFC2050’s testing of transfers is likewise draining away.
>
>
>
> Onto this discussion:
>
>
>
> What is happening in this discussion is, in my mind, the tail wagging the
> dog.
>
>
>
> It’s as if your local property registrar in your county has determined
> that when you buy a property, you are really buying the listing at the
> registrar’s office.
>
> Instead of the fact that you are buying real property and the registrar is
> merely registering your ownership, not providing your rights to it. Just
> because IP addresses are not tangible, like real property, doesn’t mean
> they only exist as database entries in a registrar’s list. Especially as we
> have demonstrated that that list is not dispositive insofar as being able
> to utilize or transfer rights to utilize the addresses. We all know that
> ARIN is not the routing police.
>
>
>
> What David and other are saying is that your rights are to an exclusive
> set of numbers to be used on the Internet, not to a registry listing. And
> as proof of that position, they point to the fact that address rights are
> transferred very effectively without regards to the ARIN registry. There is
> no denying this. Legacy sellers legally sell their rights for money, buyers
> pay money and then use the addresses as they wish, and ARIN’s registry has
> nothing to say.
>
>
>
> ARIN has played typical historical role of the over-reaching steward who
> comes to feel the resources being stewarded belong to the steward and not
> the king.
>
>
>
> So the answer to John’s question of what is being transferred?  The
> exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet, deriving from a
> continuous chain-of-custody of rights granted legally by the US Department
> of Commerce. For legacy holders, anyway. For non-legacy holders, their
> rights derive from the RSA with ARIN, and ARIN’s rights derive from their
> MoU with the US Department of Commerce.
>
>
>
> Imagine a thought experiment. I have a pool of 100 mutually exclusive
> numbers of which one is a lotto winner. I can sell each number to a buyer
> without a registry but with a contract. If I sell the same number to two
> individuals, those individuals can take legal actions based on the contract
> that assures exclusivity. So there are legal rights to numbers conferred
> via the contract that do not have anything to do with a registry. I might
> use a registry to keep track of things, but that is secondary to the legal
> rights contractually conferred.
>
>
>
> Imagine a though experiment. I received an allocation from Jon Postel,
> acting under the authority of the US Department of Commerce. I have an
> email from him with the block numbers I was assigned. I use the addresses
> for five years but then find that they were not properly recorded by Mr.
> Postel, or were incorrectly transferred to a subsequent registrar like
> ARIN.  Can’t I take the original email (the contract here) to a judge and
> demand that the registry be changed to match my email?  Or, since the
> rights are “provided” by ARIN, wouldn’t I be out of luck, since the rights
> are to a registry entry, and the entry doesn’t match my email? In other
> words, which is primary, a contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on
> the Internet, or ARIN’s control of their registry system?
>
>
>
> A registrar records property rights, it doesn’t create them.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *John Curran
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:36 AM
> *To:* David Conrad
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> John,
>
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>  Your confusion is likely over what represents “correct attribution” - if
> ARIN does not
>
>  operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it,
>
>
> In your view, who uses "the registry"?
>
> Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement,
> consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"?
>
>
>
> All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in
>
> defining the registry policy)
>
>
> One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn’t have policies that inhibit
> transfers
>
>
> One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" comes up
> with a policy defining the sky to be green.  There are numerous mechanisms
> by which the ARIN community can enforce policy such as a prohibition
> against (particular) transfers: refuse to delegate reverse DNS, refuse to
> update the ARIN routing registry, imbed notifications of policy violations
> in registration records, call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc.
> None of these defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry.
> Refusing to update the registration database does.
>
>
>
> David -  you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred
>
> other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing
>
> to update the registration database", as if it were a registration
>
> of some independent item - an automobile, for example.   What
>
> exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that
>
> was created when same is assigned?
>
>
>
> It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy
>
> resulting from ARIN following community policy.
>
>
>
>  but I don’t think you’re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community
> policy in the
>
>  operation of the registry?
>
>
> The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN".
>
> If the subset of the community that participates in the definition of ARIN
> policy decided to create a policy that effectively destroyed the
> registration database, yes, I would definitely advocate ARIN, the corporate
> entity (or, more specifically, the ARIN board), ignore that policy. I
> believe the board would actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
>
> I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database (defined
> to be one that matches actual reality, not one that corresponds to what an
> infinitesimal subset of the Internet community thinks might be a good idea
> on any particular day) is a violation of the trust Jon Postel and the
> Internet community as a whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted
> the monopoly for registry services for the ARIN service region.
>
>
>
> Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation
>
> that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy.
>
>
>
> With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly
>
> clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer
>
> would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the
>
> transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such:
>
>
>
> "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR."
>
>
>
> Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting?
>
>
> That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7.
>
>
>
> Done.  You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred
>
> that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry.  If there is
>
> something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is
>
> not updated), please elucidate.   If indeed the IP address block is
>
> one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is
>
> no inconsistency at all.
>
>
>
> One more time:
>
>
> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate
> management
>
> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information
>
> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address.
>
> In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American
> _Registry_
>
> for Internet Numbers again?
>
>
> Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing.
>
>
>
> The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you
>
> _start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks
>
> to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's
>
> that are often used, etc.
>
>
>
> None of this has changed - you still start the process with the
>
> registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you
>
> seek.  ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this
>
> in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed
>
> long before any transfer market.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> /John
>
>
>
> John Curran
>
> President and CEO
>
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150602/5e5cf0ae/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list