[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi John,

On 24/09/15 23:16, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Keeping needs basis in the NRPM will only drive the transfers underground. Some are already using all kind of financial tricks (futures contracts, lease contracts, etc) and are waiting for the needs basis criteria to be removed from NRPM in order to register the transfers in the ARIN Registry.
>>
>> The Registry/Whois will win most from the removal of needs basis from the NRPM and process streamlining.
> Elvis -
>
>     To be clear, there is nothing “improper” about a future or option contract if two
>     private parties decide to engage in such (and I can imagine cases where such
>     an arrangement might make sense regardless of state of IPv4 transfer policy.)
correct.
>
>     This does not detract from the your point that the usefulness of the registry is
>     maximum when the party actually using the address block is the registrant
>     (and hence transfer policies which even indirectly encourage other outcomes
>     reduce its functionality, e.g. for operations, etc.)
And I believe that some financial 'tricks' are used instead of just 
registration in the registry/whois.
>
>     There are even cases where loaning/leasing of address blocks may make sense;
that's true..
>     I believe your point is that we don’t want to see these sorts of arrangements appear
>     (in circumstances beyond their normal useful roles) as alternatives to transfers
>     simply as a result of transfer policy hurdles - is that correct?
You got my point. I would rather see needs-based criteria removed in 
place of having all kind of documents hidden in archives as alternative 
for the transfer.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>   
regards,
elvis