<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span></span></div>
<div>On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad <<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org">drc@virtualized.org</a>> wrote:
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>John,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span> Your confusion is likely over what represents “correct attribution” - if ARIN does not</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span> operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it,</span><br>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>In your view, who uses "the registry"?</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"?</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in </div>
<div>defining the registry policy)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span></span>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn’t have policies that inhibit transfers</span><br>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" comes up with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are numerous mechanisms by which the ARIN community can enforce policy such as a prohibition against (particular) transfers: refuse
to delegate reverse DNS, refuse to update the ARIN routing registry, imbed notifications of policy violations in registration records, call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. None of these defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. Refusing
to update the registration database does.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
David - you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred
<div>other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing </div>
<div>to update the registration database", as if it were a registration </div>
<div>of some independent item - an automobile, for example. What </div>
<div>exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that </div>
<div>was created when same is assigned? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy </div>
<div>resulting from ARIN following community policy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span></span>
<blockquote type="cite"><span> but I don’t think you’re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community policy in the</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span> operation of the registry?</span><br>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN".</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>If the subset of the community that participates in the definition of ARIN policy decided to create a policy that effectively destroyed the registration database, yes, I would definitely advocate ARIN, the corporate entity (or, more specifically, the
ARIN board), ignore that policy. I believe the board would actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database (defined to be one that matches actual reality, not one that corresponds to what an infinitesimal subset of the Internet community thinks might be a good idea on any particular day) is a
violation of the trust Jon Postel and the Internet community as a whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted the monopoly for registry services for the ARIN service region.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation</div>
<div>that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly</div>
<div>clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer</div>
<div>would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the</div>
<div>transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<pre class="newpage" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; page-break-before: always;"><font face="UICTFontTextStyleBody"><span style="white-space: normal; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">"7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be
approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain
the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
requesting an IP address directly from the IR."</span></font></pre>
</div>
<div>
<div><span></span><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting?</span><br>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Done. You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred</div>
<div>that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry. If there is</div>
<div>something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is</div>
<div>not updated), please elucidate. If indeed the IP address block is</div>
<div>one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is </div>
<div>no inconsistency at all.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span></span><span>One more time:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>for Internet Numbers again?</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you </div>
<div>_start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks </div>
<div>to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's</div>
<div>that are often used, etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>None of this has changed - you still start the process with the </div>
<div>registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you </div>
<div>seek. ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this</div>
<div>in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed</div>
</div>
<div>long before any transfer market.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
</body>
</html>