[arin-ppml] Request for Comment & Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum Criteria

[Jeremy Koski]

Section 9 doesn't reach my legacy space, but "grandfathered" does. That was
the narrow point, and it's the one getting left behind.

The word is being retired as dated terminology, and as drafting that's
fine. I guess. It'll never go away. But it named a real category of holder,
and some of us in it spent years on the receiving end of what came after.
rDNS updates gated on signing. Fee demands in the thousands. And years
later, a transfer ARIN itself had approved getting second guessed a decade
after the fact, with a clawback threat aimed at a buyer who had done
nothing wrong. Retiring the word is cosmetic. Whether the deference to pre
existing status survives it is the part I care about.

I addressed the original note to John because he was there for all of it
and would remember the specifics. If he wants to or dare reply. Remember
CNN, John? A couple of years ago ARIN went to the buyer of one of my blocks
and told him they would claw back the /19, which carried a reserve to /18,
unless I signed and mailed a notarized document confirming I had sold him
the business. Ten years after the sale ARIN had already been approved. If
my email had changed, or I had died, or I had simply not answered, he would
have been out the block he paid for.

IP brokerages firms should and must be aware of such frivolous antics.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:38 AM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:08 AM Jeremy Koski <jsk1978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Grandfathered in may not be the proper term but it is an active
> argument. Now John may not know this, but I received a large number of
> addresses in the USA through InterNIC when I was 12. It was justifiable and
> granted.
> >
> > Restrictions, reverse dns and other problems came there after when ARIN
> was formed. Then I began to get threats for $2500 to $5000 but I refused to
> opt in.
> >
> > Does one exempt or simply apply new rules where you seem to have
> forcibly opted in…
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> The draft on the table is a change to section 9 of the policy manual.
> It applies to qualification for _additional_ IP addresses. If you ask
> ARIN for _more_ IP addresses than you currently use, those addresses
> you acquired when you were 12 matter. Section 9 then talks about
> whether use of those old addresses elsewhere in the world qualifies as
> "in use" for the purpose of justifying the *NEW* addresses. Not
> justifying the old ones, justifying the *new* ones.
>
> If you're not asking for more addresses for the same registrant then
> section 9 is not applicable to your legacy addresses at all.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260724/edfa6cba/attachment.htm>