On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > At least at this point in time, the number of transfers is relatively low, > the block sizes also, and I think the staff at the RIRs would certainly > detect attempts to evade the needs test through transfers to linked shell > corporations.
Hi Mike, That poses a practical problem. When is a legal entity linked? Even the courts struggle with determining whether one legal entity is operating under control of another, and that's after subpoenas, discovery and comparable activities that you propose ARIN not be allowed to evaluate for small transfers. Are they linked if one is a wholly owned subsidiary? Even if they're in completely different businesses? What if neither is a subsidiary of the other but they have the same owners? Is ARIN even allowed to ask who the private owners are? What if one company is owned by Joe Smith and the other by Bob Jones, but Smith is operating under contract to Jones for address management services? Even if ARIN can manage to detect the behavior, they have to follow policy with specificity and consistency lest they create big legal troubles for themselves. How do you match a policy statement to that morass without either creating large loopholes or stepping back to a level of abstraction which isn't actionable? A few years ago the BoT tried to tackle the linked-organizations problem and got smacked down hard. It may be intractable, obstructing any policy which depends on it being solvable. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
