Jeremy - If you want to transfer your rights to an IP address block in the ARIN registry, it’s advisable to contact ARIN to have the entry updated in a timely manner – this is the best way to avoid any future over who holds the rights.
If ARIN does have another party contact us and indicate that a mistake has been made and credibly assert they are actually the proper rights holder, then indeed we will investigating the situation to help resolve the matter. This may result in us contacting you even after a transfer to obtain additional information (particularly because some of the earliest transfers were made without the current level of rigor that we require today.) Note that policy developed by this community applies to all entries in the ARIN registry – ARIN instantiates the cooperation that this community develops, and the benefits of participation in the registry comes with obligation to follow the community developed policy. For example, when new NRPM policy indicates that you have to register an Abuse contact, it’s not optional for any registry users and applies regardless of when you obtained your number resources. This is why it’s important to be aware of (and participate if interested in) the ARIN community’s policy development process. With respect to the particular proposal being discussed, the question is simply regarding handling of existing parties already on the waiting list (i.e. in order to avoid confusion, it would be best if any policy that changed criteria for the waiting list provided clarifying guidance regarding the handling of those already on the waiting list.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On Jul 25, 2026, at 5:55 AM, Jeremy Koski <[email protected]> wrote: Section 9 doesn't reach my legacy space, but "grandfathered" does. That was the narrow point, and it's the one getting left behind. The word is being retired as dated terminology, and as drafting that's fine. I guess. It'll never go away. But it named a real category of holder, and some of us in it spent years on the receiving end of what came after. rDNS updates gated on signing. Fee demands in the thousands. And years later, a transfer ARIN itself had approved getting second guessed a decade after the fact, with a clawback threat aimed at a buyer who had done nothing wrong. Retiring the word is cosmetic. Whether the deference to pre existing status survives it is the part I care about. I addressed the original note to John because he was there for all of it and would remember the specifics. If he wants to or dare reply. Remember CNN, John? A couple of years ago ARIN went to the buyer of one of my blocks and told him they would claw back the /19, which carried a reserve to /18, unless I signed and mailed a notarized document confirming I had sold him the business. Ten years after the sale ARIN had already been approved. If my email had changed, or I had died, or I had simply not answered, he would have been out the block he paid for. IP brokerages firms should and must be aware of such frivolous antics. On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:38 AM William Herrin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:08 AM Jeremy Koski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Grandfathered in may not be the proper term but it is an active argument. Now > John may not know this, but I received a large number of addresses in the USA > through InterNIC when I was 12. It was justifiable and granted. > > Restrictions, reverse dns and other problems came there after when ARIN was > formed. Then I began to get threats for $2500 to $5000 but I refused to opt > in. > > Does one exempt or simply apply new rules where you seem to have forcibly > opted in… Hi Jeremy, The draft on the table is a change to section 9 of the policy manual. It applies to qualification for _additional_ IP addresses. If you ask ARIN for _more_ IP addresses than you currently use, those addresses you acquired when you were 12 matter. Section 9 then talks about whether use of those old addresses elsewhere in the world qualifies as "in use" for the purpose of justifying the *NEW* addresses. Not justifying the old ones, justifying the *new* ones. If you're not asking for more addresses for the same registrant then section 9 is not applicable to your legacy addresses at all. Regards, Bill Herrin _______________________________________________ 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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
