[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 20:55:07 EDT 2015
> 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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML