The problem with your California analogy of course is that even though the car
(i.e. Legacy Block) might have been titled in California originally (i.e. NSF),
the sales transaction might have happened in another state or even another
country (i.e. private transaction completely outside ARIN) and California can't
say after the fact that they won't recognize the sale of the car as the car was
sold legally and therefore California can't somehow void or disavow the
transaction.
Maybe the NSF or congress could void those Legacy transactions but ARIN doesn't
have the legal authority to void them or declare them somehow to be invalid.
I think that the new RIPE policy is acknowledging this reality and I think ARIN
adopting the same identical policy makes sense because it would allow the
coming together of Legacy holders and ARIN allocations holders which I think is
in everyone's interest.
Note that I would expect ARIN to be able to request and receive proof of a
completed transaction before they update their database with the new
information.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:51 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: John Curran; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy
InternetResourceHolders
On Feb 12, 2014, at 5:43 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> John,
>
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:13 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "The importance of maintaining accurate records in the ARIN database is
>>> recognized as ARIN's principal task."
>> Alas, your very clear formulation won't be very informative, since
>> the registry is accurate even after a denied transfer
>
> You appear to be assuming that if ARIN denies the transfer, the transfer
> doesn't occur.
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
By definition, that is true as far as the transfer of the registration.
However, I believe at this point you and John are talking about two different
things.
You are talking about the transfer of the use of the numbers as IP addresses
routed on the internet.
John is talking about the transfer of the registration of the addresses within
the RIR system.
Yes, the two can happen independently of one another.
You are arguing (if I understand correctly) that when the transfer of usage
occurs without the transfer of registration, that is a bad thing and you
believe that there should be no limits on the transfer of registration in order
to prevent this dichotomy from developing.
I don’t happen to agree with your position. As noted in earlier threads,
transfers of the use of number resources which occur contrary to registry party
are unable to be registered.
Owen
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
