OK, I’ve read it, and here is my reaction: This policy requires legal comment. ARIN’s Articles and Bylaws do not specifically prohibit ARIN from monetizing returned or revoked resources by selling those resources into the transfer market
So point #1 is that this proposed policy does not violate any articles or bylaws. Today, ARIN does not financially benefit in any material way from such revocations. Adoption of this policy would for the first time allow the party in a contested revocation situation to argue that ARIN seeks to financially benefit. Avoiding that concern is also significant. I am totally unimpressed with this argument. If ARIN revokes addresses for nonpayment it is financially benefiting from the revocation is it not? It is basically taking them back because it is not getting paid. If ARIN “gets paid” by selling the numbers into the transfer market what is the difference exactly? And so what if a defendant in a revocation case can argue that ARIN financially benefits? Under the applicable contract law, either the defendant violated the rules in a way that justifies a revocation, or it did not. IF indeed ARIN is just grabbing the addresses to make money, it will lose the case. If it isn’t, then it won’t. Let the court decide. I have another question for those of you who are saying “let the list just die and the transfer market take over.” How does the transfer market “take over” if numbers are returned to ARIN but ARIN can’t sell them into said transfer market? Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block]
_______________________________________________ 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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
