<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 2, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, ARIN <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:</div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
ARIN-prop-145 STLS Listing Immunity<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><snip></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Add a subsection to Section 12 (Resource Review) of the NRPM:<br>
<br>
ARIN may not revoke any resources issued by ARIN that are presently<br>
listed as "available" on the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service<br>
unless there is sufficient reason to believe that the holder does not in<br>
fact intend to transfer these resources.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Another way to accomplish this would be with the following language from the original transfer policy proposal, 2008-2:</div><div><br></div><div>
The fact that an IPv4 address holder is making IPv4 addresses available for transfer, pursuant to this policy, does not, in and of itself, indicate that the address holder lacks the need required for an allocation under ARIN policy.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></blockquote>I could accept this language as it does not create a presumption that</div><div>listing the addresses exempts them from review.</div><div><br></div><div>The proposed language in 145 creates a presumption that ARIN has</div><div>to overcome through greater evidence and/or cost/effort.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I believe that ARIN has made assurances that this will not be done, but I would support such assurances into policy as well if people think it's needed. </div>
<div><br></div></div></div></blockquote>As would I, so long as it is not done in such a way as to turn listing</div><div>into a presumptive blanket exclusion from policy enforcement.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
This policy would also serve to increase the value of the ARIN STLS over<br>
other possible transfer listing services, increasing the transparency of<br>
the transfer market, particularly to ARIN, who wishes to ensure that<br>
transfers take place within NRPM 8.3.<br><br></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>I think it's important to make any "Safe Harbor" statement apply to all IPv4 addresses being made available for transfer (including those on eBay etc.) not just those offered through ARIN's Specified Transfer Listing Service. ARIN has repeatedly made clear that the STLS is completely optional, which I believe is the right way to approach it. I don't believe we should be giving the STLS preferential treatment in the transfer policy in any way.</div>
<br></div></blockquote>I don't consider it particularly important to extend safe harbor provisions</div><div>beyond STLS. People can use whichever listing service they wish. Having</div><div>safe harbor provisions as an advantage to using STLS does not strike</div><div>me as inherently bad.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not opposed to extending them, but I don't think it is particularly</div><div>important to do so.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>