Exclusivity is not guaranteed outside of the registry. We can both put
the same address on a piece of equipment. Who has the rights to use
that address? Most people say it's whoever has the entry in the registry.
I'd be happy to sell you the number 4. It will be up to you to prove to
people that you have the exclusive right to use it and for them to
accept that right.
On 6/2/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
First a diversion:
I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs
testing today.
It should be obvious to anybody that **in the presence of a free
pool** that without needs testing transfers, you effectively remove
needs testing altogether.
Otherwise someone could get addresses, transfer them away to a
needless entity, and repeat the process to drain the pool. A
non-starter, obviously.
So of course we needed to needs-test transfers then, but the argument
today is in the context of a drained free pool, and so the logic
behind RFC2050’s testing of transfers is likewise draining away.
Onto this discussion:
What is happening in this discussion is, in my mind, the tail wagging
the dog.
It’s as if your local property registrar in your county has determined
that when you buy a property, you are really buying the listing at the
registrar’s office.
Instead of the fact that you are buying real property and the
registrar is merely registering your ownership, not providing your
rights to it. Just because IP addresses are not tangible, like real
property, doesn’t mean they only exist as database entries in a
registrar’s list. Especially as we have demonstrated that that list is
not dispositive insofar as being able to utilize or transfer rights to
utilize the addresses. We all know that ARIN is not the routing police.
What David and other are saying is that your rights are to an
exclusive set of numbers to be used on the Internet, not to a registry
listing. And as proof of that position, they point to the fact that
address rights are transferred very effectively without regards to the
ARIN registry. There is no denying this. Legacy sellers legally sell
their rights for money, buyers pay money and then use the addresses as
they wish, and ARIN’s registry has nothing to say.
ARIN has played typical historical role of the over-reaching steward
who comes to feel the resources being stewarded belong to the steward
and not the king.
So the answer to John’s question of what is being transferred? The
exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet, deriving
from a continuous chain-of-custody of rights granted legally by the US
Department of Commerce. For legacy holders, anyway. For non-legacy
holders, their rights derive from the RSA with ARIN, and ARIN’s rights
derive from their MoU with the US Department of Commerce.
Imagine a thought experiment. I have a pool of 100 mutually exclusive
numbers of which one is a lotto winner. I can sell each number to a
buyer without a registry but with a contract. If I sell the same
number to two individuals, those individuals can take legal actions
based on the contract that assures exclusivity. So there are legal
rights to numbers conferred via the contract that do not have anything
to do with a registry. I might use a registry to keep track of things,
but that is secondary to the legal rights contractually conferred.
Imagine a though experiment. I received an allocation from Jon Postel,
acting under the authority of the US Department of Commerce. I have an
email from him with the block numbers I was assigned. I use the
addresses for five years but then find that they were not properly
recorded by Mr. Postel, or were incorrectly transferred to a
subsequent registrar like ARIN. Can’t I take the original email (the
contract here) to a judge and demand that the registry be changed to
match my email? Or, since the rights are “provided” by ARIN, wouldn’t
I be out of luck, since the rights are to a registry entry, and the
entry doesn’t match my email? In other words, which is primary, a
contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on the Internet, or
ARIN’s control of their registry system?
A registrar records property rights, it doesn’t create them.
Regards,
Mike Burns
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
*On Behalf Of *John Curran
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:36 AM
*To:* David Conrad
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2
On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
John,
On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Your confusion is likely over what represents “correct
attribution” - if ARIN does not
operate the registry according to the policies set by those
who use it,
In your view, who uses "the registry"?
Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law
enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of
"the registry"?
All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in
defining the registry policy)
One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn’t have policies
that inhibit transfers
One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community"
comes up with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are
numerous mechanisms by which the ARIN community can enforce policy
such as a prohibition against (particular) transfers: refuse to
delegate reverse DNS, refuse to update the ARIN routing registry,
imbed notifications of policy violations in registration records,
call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. None of these
defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. Refusing
to update the registration database does.
David - you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred
other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing
to update the registration database", as if it were a registration
of some independent item - an automobile, for example. What
exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that
was created when same is assigned?
It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy
resulting from ARIN following community policy.
but I don’t think you’re actually advocating that ARIN ignore
community policy in the
operation of the registry?
The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN".
If the subset of the community that participates in the definition
of ARIN policy decided to create a policy that effectively
destroyed the registration database, yes, I would definitely
advocate ARIN, the corporate entity (or, more specifically, the
ARIN board), ignore that policy. I believe the board would
actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database
(defined to be one that matches actual reality, not one that
corresponds to what an infinitesimal subset of the Internet
community thinks might be a good idea on any particular day) is a
violation of the trust Jon Postel and the Internet community as a
whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted the monopoly for
registry services for the ARIN service region.
Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation
that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy.
With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly
clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer
would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the
transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such:
"7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the
regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same
criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR."
Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting?
That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7.
Done. You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred
that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry. If there is
something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is
not updated), please elucidate. If indeed the IP address block is
one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is
no inconsistency at all.
One more time:
Historically, the point of the registry database was to
facilitate management
of the network, e.g., a place you could look up
registration information
when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the
source address.
In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the
American _Registry_
for Internet Numbers again?
Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing.
The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you
_start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks
to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's
that are often used, etc.
None of this has changed - you still start the process with the
registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you
seek. ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this
in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed
long before any transfer market.
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.
--
================================================================
Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
================================================================
_______________________________________________
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.
