On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > > > Hi Blake, > > > > We can be wistful for the lack of progress of RPKI or the fact that > addresses are regularly routed for customers who are not the Whois > registrants, but we are powerless to change those things, community-wide. > > > > We are a community of private network operators for the most part. We > are stakeholders tasked primarily with maintaining a registry of uniqueness > of IP addresses. We need to ask ourselves whether the purported benefits of > maintaining a needs-test for every change of registrant in Whois is worth > the risk to the registry and the expenditure of fungible ARIN staff > resources. > > > > I elucidated one such risk, which is the risk of un-registered > acquisitions of shell corporations which are incentivized by the lack of a > needs test. John Curran acknowledged this risk. > > > > I offered an example of one of the few publicly demonstrable cases of > this in Whois, related to the public information surrounding the > Microsoft/Nortel deal. I am aware of many more but can not disclose them. > > > > People seek to frame this issue as if it were this question: "Should we > change the rules just because some people will break them?" > > > > My answer to that is yes, of course we should, unless the rule provides > some overriding benefit. > > > > So my question for the community is "What is the benefit we realize by > insisting on ARIN team review of every single transfer, down to /24, and is > it worth ARIN ticket time delay and the risk of decreased Whois accuracy?” > > The benefit is preserving addresses on a fair basis for those who actually > have legitimate and quasi-immediate use for them. > > Yes, this benefit is worth the ARIN ticket time and delay. >
Agree. > > There has not yet been any actual evidence presented to show that the risk > to whois accuracy is any greater without this proposal than it is with it. > Those that would ignore ARIN policy to effectuate a transfer are just as > likely IMHO to ignore whois as not. > > > And secondarily, what size of un-needs tested transfer would be an > acceptable balance between the benefits of the needs test and the costs of > the needs test? > > /24 seems like a perfectly reasonable balancing point to me. Also Agree. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ 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.