On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:43 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> You appear to be assuming that if ARIN denies the transfer, the transfer
> doesn't occur.
Correct.
>> Hence, my suggestion to make such a survey more specific with
>> respect to prioritization of needs-based transfers vs operational
>> usefulness of registry data.
>
> Again, for me, the issue isn't about needs-based transfer per se, it's more
> general than that. Needs-based constraints on transfer in the context of
> legacy addresses is a post facto imposition of policy on resource holders who
> have no contractual obligation to abide by (or even knowledge of) that policy.
David -
I'm sorry - you are mischaracterizing the needs-based transfer
policy as a "post facto imposition of policy" by ARIN. The needs-
based requirement for transfers existed before ARIN; the ARIN
community has only been sustaining the existing practice:
RFC 2050 (November 1996) is fairly clear on this matter -
" 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."
Since you were a coauthor of RFC2050, perhaps you can explain
what is supposed to happen when the approval described above
does not occur?
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.
