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

[Jose R. de la Cruz III]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org>
Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>


Hi John. This is my first post, so please excuse my ignorance. It seems
that the main problem is maintaining an accurate registry. My question to
you is, can the registry be 'updated' in the sense of adding additional
fields to show the 'legal' owner, plus the actual organization using the
addresses? Just a thought, but maybe keeping track of organizations that
only request address blocks to immediately transfer them out would become
an indicator of such organization's real need. Further allocations would
also take into account this fact, as the community will be aware of the
real need.

José

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> 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.)
>
>    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.)
>
>    There are even cases where loaning/leasing of address blocks may make
> sense;
>    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?
>
> 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/20150928/411c74af/attachment.htm>