On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But in the case at hand, holder X writes a letter to non-holder Y saying
> "sure, I'm ok with you advertising these addresses for the next year"
>
> If holder X then sues non-holder Y and presents the ARIN registration as
> evidence, that letter isn't going to make this a "cookie-cutter violation"
> any more. And further, in the case at hand, holder X *doesn't* sue non-holder
> Y... instead a bunch of relying parties, including law enforcement, just
> can't see who really has the legal use of the addresses, because ARIN refused
> to update their records because some arbitrary policies weren't followed.
Matthew -
The example you cite isn’t actually a transfer; the address holder “X” still
controls
the address block in the registry. It’s not even clear that the address
holder “X”
intends to ever transfer the address block.
Law enforcement will inquire to “X" address holder regarding various
matters, but
presumably handling such remains their obligation since they have opted not
to
transfer the block to party “Y” in accordance with community developed
policy.
You may not like the registry policies, but they are supported by the
community
which makes use of the registry and hence come along with benefits of unique
identifiers from the registry.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
