On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > Keeping needs basis in the NRPM will only drive the transfers underground. > Some are already using all kind of financial tricks (futures contracts, lease > contracts, etc) and are waiting for the needs basis criteria to be removed > from NRPM in order to register the transfers in the ARIN Registry. > > The Registry/Whois will win most from the removal of needs basis from the > NRPM and process streamlining.
Elvis - To be clear, there is nothing “improper” about a future or option contract if two private parties decide to engage in such (and I can imagine cases where such an arrangement might make sense regardless of state of IPv4 transfer policy.) This does not detract from the your point that the usefulness of the registry is maximum when the party actually using the address block is the registrant (and hence transfer policies which even indirectly encourage other outcomes reduce its functionality, e.g. for operations, etc.) There are even cases where loaning/leasing of address blocks may make sense; I believe your point is that we don’t want to see these sorts of arrangements appear (in circumstances beyond their normal useful roles) as alternatives to transfers simply as a result of transfer policy hurdles - is that correct? 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.
