On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm thinking about things like a lawsuit where the plaintiff gets awarded all > of the defendant's "assets" in question, and the plaintiff then asks ARIN to > transfer the IPv4 defendant's /32 to them. When that has occurred, it is generally a single IP address out of a block still registered to the ISP (rather than the particular organization which has a web site and has gone defunct/bankruptcy/judgement) > If ARIN simply doesn't transfer /32s, then they can tell the judge "I'm > sorry, but we just can't do that, and here's why (point to policy)". Without > such a policy, they have to make the much trickier "that's not an asset" > argument. Which is something we can manage in either case; we need the community to set policy which matches their expectations for management of IP address space, rather than policy solely to make administration easier. (i.e. given that we have to handle the case where a customer's temporary /24 assignment is being "transferred" out of the midst of an ISP block, having no limit just means potentially dealing with more such cases.) > IIUIC, exactly that scenario has happened several times. If so, then I > expect that if we get to the point of doing a Staff and Legal assessment on > this, they'll bring this up. We will so the community is aware of the implications, but the policy the community desires comes first over easy of implementation. It is definitely a factor to consider, but should not be considered a hard impediment if the community decides that no minimum is more appropriate. FYI, /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.
