transfer process

[Jason Redisch]

Kim,
	I agree.  The main point is to put off the initial IP justification until
the next scheduled period.   There is little point in taking up time of both
sides one month for a transfer justification and a month later for an
additional address request.  Either the two processes should be merged or we
should drop the re-justification process since these entities had to justify
this IP space once before already with ARIN.  This would provide ARIN more
time to focus on transfers between companies with no ARIN history.

BTW:  Just to clarify, the justification described above is separate from
providing legal documentation of proof of ownership/merger.  That should
still be required before any transfer takes place.

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Hubbard [mailto:kimh at arin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:41 PM
To: jredisch at virtela.com; danny at tcb.net
Cc: policy at arin.net
Subject: RE: FW: Long over due


At 12:01 PM 5/10/00 -0600, Jason Redisch wrote:
>Thanks Danny,

>	What I am proposing is that if both companies involved in a merger are
>registered ARIN ISP's that have a history with ARIN, then the justification
>of the transfer between the two maintainer ID's should be included with the
>justification the next time an ISP has to go back for more IP space.  This
>way the ISP's can focus on the mergers and ARIN can focus more energy on
>transfers between entities without a history.

Wouldn't this slow down the process for requesting more addresses?
Usually, when an ISP is requesting more addresses they're in a bigger time
crunch than when they're asking for a transfer.

Perhaps asking for utilization of the addresses isn't required as long as
the legal documention looks good.

The ISPs that have a history with ARIN isn't as big a problem (from out
viewpoint) as those orgs that we've never heard of and will never hear of
again.

Kim


>
>	The main logic behind this change is that both ISP's had already justified
>their IP space to ARIN under the current ARIN policy.  They still must show
>they have a need for the combined IP space, but there is no reason this
>cannot be combined with the justification at the time of their next
request.
>
>Questions:
>
>Should end users be included in this as well or should it only impact ISP
to
>ISP mergers as end users may not have the need to ever come back to ARIN
>again?  What about ISP end user mergers?
>
>What does is mean to have a history with ARIN?  A number of additional
space
>requests?  Some period of time?
>
>If something like this is approved what additional changes should be made
>the transfer policy for those organizations who do not fall under this new
>policy?  Increased cost?  More justification?
>
>Is this worth the time to discuss or should we be looking at just making
>transfers more difficult across the board?
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>Jason Redisch 		(w) 720-528-4368
>Sr IP Engineer			(f) 720-528-4361
>Virtela Communications
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: danny at sofos.tcb.net [mailto:danny at sofos.tcb.net]On Behalf Of Danny
>McPherson
>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:18 AM
>To: jredisch at virtela.com
>Cc: policy at arin.net
>Subject: Re: FW: Long over due
>
>
>
>
>> I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the
>community
>> from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input
>> on this topic.
>
>I'll bite, what were your ideas?
>
>-danny