------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 19:41:04 -0700 From: Jay Martin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 Message-ID: <CALJtNObriexj+m0-V5kXwsPTG0u8q+tO2GU-S8v3zAcTb7=v...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi David, <snip> Why do you think remove needs test will be enhance a more accurate whois? <snip> Jay Hi Jay: Most instances where the whois is incorrect are cases of legacy IPv4 addresses. Knowledgeable legacy IPv4 holders believe they have property rights to their IPv4 addresses. If they approach ARIN to bring the registry up to date, ARIN will instruct them to sign an LRSA. The LRSA contains text that explicitly forces them to admit they have no property rights. It they do not approach ARIN, and they keep their assumed property rights, they hope in the future, for the benefit of being able to do whatever they want with their IP's, such as transfer to any buyer in North America, Europe , or Asia without ARIN permission. It has never been proven in any court that ARIN approval of a legacy transfer without an agreement is necessary; however for ~$400,000-500,000 it is hardly worthwhile for a /16 owner to risk taking on ARIN in court to fight for its property rights. Perhaps at some point some party with more at stake, will force the property right issue in court, and this is why there is low uptake on signing LRSA's by legacy IP address holders. It is possible that RIPE NCC will implement an inter-RIR policy, and RIPE has no-needs justification. What will ARIN do, if a legacy company based in North America, with no ARIN agreement, transfers its IP's to a RIPE NCC member? If RIPE registers the IP's, will ARIN refuse to un-register the IPS, when the legacy holder has no contract with them? Consider a similar situation where a company has legacy IP's in North America and is an LIR in RIPE NCC and has no ARIN agreement. What if it wishes to transfer the IP's from its North American operations to its European operations? It would ask the RIPE NCC to register its IPs, and ARIN to unregister, and it has no agreement with ARIN. Would ARIN refuse? This all comes back to the needs test and the LRSA. If both were removed, we would have a more accurate whois. I believe it benefits whois accuracy and legacy IPv4 holders more than it benefits anyone, including large companies. My experience as an IPv4 broker, having completed more than 80 transactions globally, is that large successful companies have a lot of IP's and IPv6 that are registered with ARIN. They want to continue that relationship with ARIN and value that relationship more than removal of needs justification. I believe Mr. Huberman is speaking for the benefit of the community at large based on his experience working at ARIN, and because he sees the bigger picture of how inaccurate the registry is, and realizes these bigger issues, and is merely pointing out that removal of needs justification will fix part of the problem. I have never met Mr. Huberman but I certainly agree with the views he has presented here for the community's benefit, and I think we should thank him for his guidance. Sandra Brown speaking as President, IPv4 Market Group _______________________________________________ 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.
