<html aria-label="message body">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
Jeremy -
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
<div>Presently there is no stated bound, so ARIN will attempt in good faith to remedy any credible reported error in transfer processing, since there’s the possible of an otherwise harmed party without clear recourse (e.g. who has been a wrong end of a skillful
hijacking) – even if such occurred years ago. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the community wishes to have a "a point past which a claim against a completed transfer is too late to bring”, then there simply needs to be clear policy developed and ARIN will implement the policy to the best of its ability. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will make two observations in considering such a policy: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>(1) The good news is that now nearly 95% of the number resources are under registration services agreement (all of which involved having a certain level of vetting of claim of association with
those resources) and as such we no longer see a large number of resources which are being brought before ARIN for the very first time to clean up their provenance, but … </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>(2) the situations that do arise now are often resources with a more colorful lineage (e.g. involving competing firms & claims, multiple mergers and splits, etc.) and that means that they can
at times be rather challenging to untangle – and would become even more so if there were a limitation on consideration added to the mix. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And perhaps obviously, if any policy development is undertaken in this area, it will be essential – back on the subject of policy development & handling of existing versus new – to understand if the intention is to apply to transfers going forward, or
if those transfers that have already occurred are to be included… (as policy that would be applied against past transfers implies a high level of outreach during policy development so as to avoid impacting parties without also providing an amply-communicated
opportunity to participate therein.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 26, 2026, at 9:27 PM, Jeremy Koski <jsk1978@gmail.com> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: -webkit-standard;"><span style="">I should have also included a mention regarding abuse contacts or anything related to that. It is an interesting argument I had not considered. While I was never told any specifics,
it came down to ARIN giving us a hard time and needing confirmation this was a legitimate transaction. My grievance with the matter is how much time can pass before something is revisited, and whether it is perpetual and can be revisited at any time, even
beyond the 10 years I experienced. In this case I was still </span>reachable<span style="">. After so long, the chances of an email, number, or address still working become less and less. There are bad actors out there and always will be. But that was not
information I was given as to the reason [bad actors is an example John related to for
</span>revisiting]<span style="">. I don't know the trigger here. There could have been any number of reasons, from a simple mistake to lost documentation, or even someone challenging the transfer ten years later for personal gain or something in that realm.
A line has to be drawn somewhere and the book closed on the matter. That this could happen ten years later, with no predetermined time limit, is still an issue, and it does fall somewhat in line here with policies, changes, retiring terms, and so on. Whatever
the trigger was, there should be a point past which a claim against a completed transfer is too late to bring, and as far as I can tell there is none. Ten years on, I do not think I had any real obligation to produce anything, I did so in good faith, notarized
and sent the documents anyway, so the buyer would hopefully not have any future issues or problems.</span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: -webkit-standard;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 12pt;">/jsk</div>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br>
</div>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container" style="color: inherit; background-color: inherit;">
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
</div>
<div style="padding: 3pt 0in 0in; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) currentcolor currentcolor;">
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; font-family: Aptos; font-size: 12pt;">
<b>From: </b>Jeremy Koski <jsk1978@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, July 26, 2026 at 2:28 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>John Curran <jcurran@arin.net><br>
<b>Cc: </b>William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; ARIN PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [arin-ppml] Request for Comment & Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum Criteria<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<p class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;">
<span style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Hi John, thanks for the response.</span></p>
<p class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;">Simply put: the buyer purchased through an IP broker around 2014, and ARIN approved
</span>it; <span style="font-size: 16px;"> a transfer of the business, the domain, and the legacy IPv4 space. Around 2024 I was told the block would be reclaimed unless I produced a notarized document stating I signed it over around ~2014. I signed copies,
had them notarized and sent them to the buyer and to ARIN, so it has essentially been resolved. But neither of us was ever told what prompted it. A competing claim? A documentation issue, or something else? It seemed to me ARIN was revisiting an approval it
had already granted 10 years after the fact.</span></p>
<p class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;">That's also why the terminology matters to me. "Grandfathered" named holders whose resources predate the rules being written about them, and the practical question isn't the word, it's whether an approval given under the rules
in effect at the time stays given. For me and the buyer, it became a legitimate and
</span>potentially<span style="font-size: 16px;"> serious issue 10 years later.</span></p>
<p class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;">Either way, IP brokers and their buyers should know this can happen going in. It happened to a legacy holder
</span>here, and<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I don</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">’</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">t know how many are left these days. The purchaser could have had a real mess on his hands if I hadn't been reachable.</span></p>
<p class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;">
<span style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Jeremy</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br>
</p>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br>
</div>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container" style="color: inherit; background-color: inherit;">
<div style="padding: 3pt 0in 0in; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) currentcolor currentcolor;">
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; font-family: Aptos; font-size: 12pt;">
<b>From: </b>John Curran <jcurran@arin.net><br>
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, July 26, 2026 at 12:01 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Jeremy Koski <jsk1978@gmail.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; ARIN PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [arin-ppml] Request for Comment & Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum Criteria<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">Jeremy -</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
If you want to transfer your rights to an IP address block in the ARIN registry, it’s advisable to contact ARIN to have the entry updated in a timely manner – this is the best way to avoid any future over who holds the rights.</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
If ARIN does have another party contact us and indicate that a mistake has been made and credibly assert they are actually the proper rights holder, then indeed we will investigating the situation to help resolve the matter. This may result in us contacting
you even after a transfer to obtain additional information (particularly because some of the earliest transfers were made without the current level of rigor that we require today.) </div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
Note that policy developed by this community applies to all entries in the ARIN registry – ARIN instantiates the cooperation that this community develops, and the benefits of participation in the registry comes with obligation to follow the community developed
policy. For example, when new NRPM policy indicates that you have to register an Abuse contact, it’s not optional for any registry users and applies regardless of when you obtained your number resources. </div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
This is why it’s important to be aware of (and participate if interested in) the ARIN community’s policy development process.</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 40px;">
With respect to the particular proposal being discussed, the question is simply regarding handling of existing parties already on the waiting list (i.e. in order to avoid confusion, it would be best if any policy that changed criteria for the waiting list provided
clarifying guidance regarding the handling of those already on the waiting list.) </div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">Thanks! </div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">/John</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">John Curran</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">President and CEO</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">On Jul 25, 2026, at 5:55 AM, Jeremy Koski <jsk1978@gmail.com> wrote:</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<p class="gmail-font-claude-response-body gmail-break-words gmail-whitespace-normal" style="direction: ltr;">
Section 9 doesn't reach my legacy space, but "grandfathered" does. That was the narrow point, and it's the one getting left behind.</p>
<p class="gmail-font-claude-response-body gmail-break-words gmail-whitespace-normal" style="direction: ltr;">
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.</p>
<p class="gmail-font-claude-response-body gmail-break-words gmail-whitespace-normal" style="direction: ltr;">
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.</p>
<p class="gmail-font-claude-response-body gmail-break-words gmail-whitespace-normal" style="direction: ltr;">
IP brokerages firms should and must be aware of such frivolous antics. </p>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_attr" style="direction: ltr;">On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:38 AM William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" data-outlook-id="6287d8c6-80f2-4581-a879-895dd9e3a426">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">
<div class="gmail_quote" style="direction: ltr;">On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:08 AM Jeremy Koski <<a href="mailto:jsk1978@gmail.com" target="_blank" data-outlook-id="8a24d71f-4cda-477d-9bfd-44aa1f12fda1">jsk1978@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Does one exempt or simply apply new rules where you seem to have forcibly opted in…<br>
<br>
Hi Jeremy,<br>
<br>
The draft on the table is a change to section 9 of the policy manual.<br>
It applies to qualification for _additional_ IP addresses. If you ask<br>
ARIN for _more_ IP addresses than you currently use, those addresses<br>
you acquired when you were 12 matter. Section 9 then talks about<br>
whether use of those old addresses elsewhere in the world qualifies as<br>
"in use" for the purpose of justifying the *NEW* addresses. Not<br>
justifying the old ones, justifying the *new* ones.<br>
<br>
If you're not asking for more addresses for the same registrant then<br>
section 9 is not applicable to your legacy addresses at all.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<br>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="direction: ltr;">
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>