[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

[Martin Hannigan]

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 16:40, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Let me give you a real world example.
>> 
>> 1. Buy rights to use addresses in any quantity you believe you need
>> 2. Use those addresses as you need them, assuming the agreement you made with the party works properly
>> 3. Get an LOA from the documented owner
>> 4. Bypass ARIN entirely
>> 5. Use the addresses.
>> 
>> How do you think we should solve that problem?
> 
> 
> It is not my job to determine whether the example above is a major problem (or not) - 
> that’s for the community to assess, but I do want to highlight some aspects that result 
> from situations (such as the one described above) of which everyone on the list might 
> not be aware - 
> 
> 1) While the network operations confusion that can result is fairly well understood to
>    those on this list, what may not be apparently is that there are others who rely upon 
>    the registry (e.g. researchers, anti-spam folks, law enforcement, etc.) and for whom
>    address blocks being used as described above results in real impacts to their ability
>    to rely upon the registry, and thus accomplish their job.
> 
> 2) Because the “documented owner” doesn’t ever update the registry, a number of
>    creative schemes are possible whereby the documented owner gets paid from
>    multiple parties for the same rights and then effectively disappears with their 
>    proceeds leaving the individual buyers to fight it out.  There are ways to reduce
>    this risk (e.g. escrow arrangements, guarantees with adequate backing, etc.)
>    but the need for these (and probability of circumvention) goes up dramatically 
>    absent an updated registry.  Likewise for the case where the “documented 
>    owner” doesn’t actually have a documentation trail that would support their 
>    ability to sell the rights to even one party, but that is not uncovered since the
>    documentation never gets reviewed by the registry.
> 
> I have not seen a clear expression of these cases on the list, and felt it important
> to describe them for those who may not have first hand involvement. It is true that 
> under 2015-7, parties would be able to obtain more address space then presently 
> allowed and to so do based upon an officer representation, so the risks that such 
> a change would bring about should be carefully weighted by the community against
> the situations outlined above which exist under the status quo.
> 
> 

Sounds like focused and friendly registry accuracy policy might work better? 

Best, 

Marty