[arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Wed Jun 3 23:29:49 EDT 2015


>> If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must be followed?
> In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check where the Board
> confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create unreasonable fiduciary
> or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all
> applicable laws and regulations.

Ironically, I had written a sentence that said "Please don't say 'our policy process wouldn't allow something like that' -- this is a hypothetical intended to be something easily identifiable as just wrong.", but deleted it as I felt it was obvious and didn't need to be said.

> Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the ARIN’s mission (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified

And my point has been that policies that damage the registration database are in violation of the mission of any of the Regional Internet Registries and should not be proposed, accepted, or ratified.

>> However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still accurately reflect that transfer_.
> Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to the above point.
> Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address
> holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the
> transfer fee, etc?)
> Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively
> ‘possession’ of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer,
> that the registry has to eventually reflect reality?

I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes'.

Simply, I believe the registry needs to reflect reality as accurately as possible. As I've said before, the point of the registry is help ensure uniqueness and to facilitate the identification of contacts to support network operations, help track down sources of abuse, etc. Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry.

(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/b07a9785/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list