<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Jose R. de la Cruz III</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jrdelacruz@acm.org">jrdelacruz@acm.org</a>></span><br>Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:18 AM<br>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<br>To: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div>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.<br><br></div>José <br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:16 PM, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank">jcurran@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea <<a href="mailto:elvis@velea.eu" target="_blank">elvis@velea.eu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> +1<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> The Registry/Whois will win most from the removal of needs basis from the NRPM and process streamlining.<br>
<br>
</span>Elvis -<br>
<br>
To be clear, there is nothing “improper” about a future or option contract if two<br>
private parties decide to engage in such (and I can imagine cases where such<br>
an arrangement might make sense regardless of state of IPv4 transfer policy.)<br>
<br>
This does not detract from the your point that the usefulness of the registry is<br>
maximum when the party actually using the address block is the registrant<br>
(and hence transfer policies which even indirectly encourage other outcomes<br>
reduce its functionality, e.g. for operations, etc.)<br>
<br>
There are even cases where loaning/leasing of address blocks may make sense;<br>
I believe your point is that we don’t want to see these sorts of arrangements appear<br>
(in circumstances beyond their normal useful roles) as alternatives to transfers<br>
simply as a result of transfer policy hurdles - is that correct?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
/John<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></div><br></div>