There is another restriction already in 8.3, which reads "The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first." In light of that, do you still see a problem with #3?
-Scott On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > Several options are being discussed regarding this proposal: > >> > 1. Use the existing last sentence as is and ask ARIN staff to be > particularly watchful for seeming abuse and to bring such back to the > community through regular Policy Experience Reports. There was discussion > about this option suggesting that by the time abuse was recognized and > reported, and given limited existing free pool stocks and the extended > policy development cycle....this option is mute. > > 2. Remove the clause 'and its subsidiaries' and or modify it in such a way > as to mitigate the risk of a laundering of addresses through fraudulent > transfers, but potentially limit the utility of organizations who may have > complex organizations structures in use internationally. > > 3. Take an alternative tack and simply restrict the Inter-RIR re-org > transfer of the 'recently issued block' only, allowing other existing > blocks to be transferred without restriction by recent block acquisition. > This alternative seems to have been expressed and supported in the recent > Atlanta Public Policy Consultation. > > > It is my opinion that option 3 is perilous in that it allows a large > resource holder to sell off their address space out of region while > backfilling from the ARIN free pool. > > As such, I am much more comfortable with option 2. One set of language > that was suggested which I like is: > > "...subsidiaries having been operational for a minimum of 18 months." > > While this might not prevent all possible subsidiary-based rinse-repeat > abuse scenarios, it would at least prevent the obvious subsidiary created > for this purpose scenario and certainly provides better protections than > proposal number 3. > > I think option 1 is probably an unfair burden for the ARIN staff and makes > policy vague in a way that would be difficult, if not impossible, to > reliably enforce and may be even harder to defend in the event of > litigation. This is strictly my own opinion as a member of the community > and I have not discussed the matter with legal council or even the other > members of the AC. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
