Ah, in this case 8.2 applies. Number resources which need to move between OrgIDs with common ownership can move via 8.2. :-)
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > > My understanding of the problem is that company A is selling a /16. > Company B buys the /16. > > After 3 months, company B finds their projected usage of the IP space > is no longer needed because their product was canceled, but a > European division of company B has need of them. > > Under current policy company B cannot transfer the address space > to their european division because: > > 1. the source is ineligible for another 9 months because they recently > received a transfer. > > 2. the recipient is ineligible because RIPE does not have a compatible > needs based policy (maybe this has changed). > > This policy would permit the transfer. > > Now instead imagine company B has multiple OrgIDs, one for dial-up, > one for dedicated customers, etc. They recently decided to have a > cloud offering, and spun up a new OrgID (under the same legal entity) > and transfered the /16 for their new cloud offering. > > The cloud product fizzles after 3 months, but there is justified need for > the /16 in part by the dial-up customers and in part by dedicated > customers. To properly reflect the usage of the space part of the /16 > needs to be moved to the dial-up OrgID, and the rest to the dedicated > OrgId. > > Same scenario, but instead of one company with multiple OrgIds, it is > one company with multiple wholly owned subsidiaries, each of which > have their own OrgID. > > I believe 8.2 does not apply unless there was some corporate > restructuring. > > ___Jason > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:04 AM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: >> What real scenario are you thinking of that involves in-region companies >> that isn't an 8.3? I'm an American and my familiarity with American >> corporate law and resulting structures is having a hard time thinking of a >> scenario. But maybe it's just early and I haven't had my hot chocolate yet >> :) >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I support as written. >>> >>> However it occurs to me, why doesn't this text also apply to 8.3 intra-ARIN >>> specified transfers? >>> >>> 1. I see no reason why intra-compnay transfers where the recipient is >>> outside of the ARIN region, be treated any differently than when the >>> recipient is inside the ARIN region. >>> >>> 2. In fact I think if anything we would want to be equally or more liberal >>> when the recipient is inside the ARIN region to have a greater chance of >>> enforcing anti-flip restrictions (which we cannot easily do outside of the >>> region). >>> >>> 3. I would like to avoid further diverging 8.3 and 8.4. One could imagine >>> merging 8.3 and 8.4 into a single section, and the community has asked the >>> AC to undertake that work. >>> >>> ___Jason >>> >>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:23 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to >>>> Specified Recipients) >>>> >>>> On 19 May 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced 2015-2 to >>>> Recommended Draft Policy status. >>>> >>>> The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found >>>> at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_2.html >>>> >>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Recommended Draft Policies on PPML prior >>>> to their presentation at the next ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC). >>>> PPML and PPC discussions are invaluable to the AC when determining >>>> community consensus. >>>> >>>> The PDP can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >>>> >>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Communications and Member Services >>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2015-2 >>>> Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) >>>> >>>> Date: 24 May 2016 >>>> >>>> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number >>>> Resource Policy: >>>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN 2015-2 contributes to fair and impartial number >>>> resources administration by removing an impediment to the transfer of IPv4 >>>> numbering resources to other RIRs when business needs change within the >>>> first 12 months of receipt of a 24 month supply of IP addresses by an >>>> entity via the transfer market. It is technically sound in that it >>>> balances removing limits on transfers of IPv4 numbering resources to other >>>> RIRs with safeguards related to ownership and control described in the >>>> draft policy to reduce the likelihood of fraudulent transactions. There >>>> was strong community support for this draft policy at the NANOG 66 PPC and >>>> ARIN 37, subject only to some suggested editorial changes which have now >>>> been implemented in the latest version. >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the >>>> transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan are >>>> unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 months >>>> of receipt. >>>> >>>> Policy statement: >>>> >>>> Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read: >>>> >>>> "Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, >>>> allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 >>>> months prior to the approval of a transfer request, unless either the >>>> source or recipient entity owns or controls the other, or both are under >>>> common ownership or control. This restriction does not include M&A >>>> transfers." >>>> >>>> Comments: Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via >>>> the transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan >>>> are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 >>>> months of receipt. The need to move the resources does not flow from ARIN >>>> policy, but rather from the requirement of certain registries outside the >>>> ARIN region to have the resources moved in order to be used there. >>>> >>>> The intention of this change is to allow organizations to perform >>>> inter-RIR transfers of space received via an 8.3 transfer regardless of >>>> the date transferred to ARIN. A common example is that an organization >>>> acquires a block located in the ARIN region, transfers it to ARIN, then 3 >>>> months later, the organization announces that it wants to launch new >>>> services out of region. Under current policy, the organization is >>>> prohibited from moving some or all of those addresses to that region's >>>> Whois if there is a need to move them to satisfy the rules of the other >>>> region requiring the movement of the resources to that region in order for >>>> them to be used there. Instead, the numbers are locked in ARIN's Whois. >>>> It's important to note that 8.3 transfers are approved for a 24 month >>>> supply, and it would not be unheard of for a business model to change >>>> within the first 12 months after approval. The proposal also introduces a >>>> requirement for an affiliation relationship between the source and >>>> recipient entity, based on established corporate law principles, so as to >>>> make it reasonably likely that eliminating the 12 month anti-flip period >>>> in that situation will meet the needs of organizations that operate >>>> networks in more than one region without encouraging abuse. >>>> >>>> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>>> >>>> b. Anything else: N/A >>>> >>>> ##### >>>> >>>> ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 >>>> MODIFY 8.4 (INTER-RIR TRANSFERS TO SPECIFIED RECIPIENTS) >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_2.html >>>> >>>> Date of Assessment: 17 May 2016 >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) >>>> >>>> Currently, organizations are unable to act as a source on an 8.4 transfer >>>> of IPv4 address space if they have received IPv4 address space in the past >>>> 12 months from ARIN's IPv4 free pool, the waiting list for unmet requests, >>>> or an 8.3 transfer. This draft policy lifts the 12-month restriction in >>>> cases when the source or recipient entity owns or controls the other, or >>>> both are under common ownership or control. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 2. Comments >>>> >>>> A. ARIN Staff Comments >>>> >>>> * If this policy is implemented, ARIN staff would no longer apply a >>>> 12-month time restriction to organizations who wish to 8.4 transfer IPv4 >>>> addresses to themselves or in cases when the source or recipient entity >>>> owns or controls the other, or both are under common ownership or control. >>>> >>>> * This policy could be implemented as written. >>>> >>>> B. ARIN General Counsel – Legal Assessment >>>> >>>> Concerns raised by the GC regarding previous versions of this policy have >>>> been satisfactorily addressed in the current draft. The current proposed >>>> draft does not create material legal issues for ARIN. In order to >>>> determine when entities are under common ownership or control, traditional >>>> legal standards will be applied by ARIN. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 3. Resource Impact >>>> >>>> Implementation of this policy would have minimal resource impact. It is >>>> estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after >>>> ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed >>>> in order to implement: >>>> >>>> * Updated guidelines and internal procedures >>>> >>>> * Staff training >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed >>>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN 2015-2 >>>> Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) >>>> >>>> Date: 11 May 2016 >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the >>>> transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan are >>>> unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 months >>>> of receipt. >>>> >>>> Policy statement: >>>> >>>> Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read: "Source entities within the ARIN region >>>> must not have received a transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 >>>> number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a >>>> transfer request, unless either the source or recipient entity owns or >>>> controls the other, or both are under common ownership or control. This >>>> restriction does not include M&A transfers." >>>> >>>> Comments: Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via >>>> the transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan >>>> are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 >>>> months of receipt. The need to move the resources does not flow from ARIN >>>> policy, but rather from the requirement of certain registries outside the >>>> ARIN region to have the resources moved in order to be used there. >>>> >>>> The intention of this change is to allow organizations to perform >>>> inter-RIR transfers of space received via an 8.3 transfer regardless of >>>> the date transferred to ARIN. A common example is that an organization >>>> acquires a block located in the ARIN region, transfers it to ARIN, then 3 >>>> months later, the organization announces that it wants to launch new >>>> services out of region. Under current policy, the organization is >>>> prohibited from moving some or all of those addresses to that region's >>>> Whois if there is a need to move them to satisfy the rules of the other >>>> region requiring the movement of the resources to that region in order for >>>> them to be used there. Instead, the numbers are locked in ARIN's Whois. >>>> It's important to note that 8.3 transfers are approved for a 24 month >>>> supply, and it would not be unheard of for a business model to change >>>> within the first 12 months after approval. The proposal also introduces a >>>> requirement for an affiliation relationship between the source and >>>> recipient entity, based on established corporate law principles, so as to >>>> make it reasonably likely that eliminating the 12 month anti-flip period >>>> in that situation will meet the needs of organizations that operate >>>> networks in more than one region without encouraging abuse. >>>> >>>> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>>> b. Anything else: N/A >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> _______________________________________________________ >>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 >
_______________________________________________ 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.
