[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

However, regarding APNIC, from what i read on

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.3.-Transfer-of-Historical
-Internet-resources

it is not 100% clear to me that the transferred blocks lose their
legacy/historical status.


Can you list which policy proposals within each RIR that resulted in the 
above...?
...so we may have some clue about the timeline of such changes -- which 
may have been passed under the legacy holders radar...

Additionally, maybe someone involved with transfers on a daily basis can 
comment if a block with legacy status has less/equal/more value than 
non-legacy blocks???


Cheers,
Carlos


Can you list which policy proposals within each RIR that resulted in the
above...?
...so we may have some clue about the timeline of such changes -- which may
have been passed under the legacy holders radar...

Additionally, maybe someone involved with transfers on a daily basis can
comment if a block with legacy status has less/equal/more value than
non-legacy blocks???


Cheers,
Carlos


Hi Carlos,

We have done every version of transfer, I believe, and can speak from
experience.
In APNIC, the seller of historical resources can sign up as a temporary
member with APNIC in order to be vetted before the sale,  then when the
block is transferred it loses its legacy status. Only RIPE transfer
recipients can maintain legacy status, except for some M&A transfers.

When I proposed a re-write of ARIN's transfer policy in 2011, I wrestled
with the requirement that the blocks lose legacy status, but included the
requirement that the recipient sign an RSA, at the time that meant it lost
legacy status.
https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-May/022171.html


My feelings at the time, as a legacy holder, were that as long as we had the
right to hold the blocks without regard to their utilization, and we had the
right to sell the blocks, that losing the legacy status wouldn't be a big
deal. In AFRINIC's case, there is the issue of whether addresses can be
revoked for lack of utilization for originally intended and justified
purposes under its RSA. You can read in the link above that in 2011, while I
included language requiring an RSA of recipients in my policy proposal, I
simultaneously requested a change to ARIN's RSA language to explicitly
remove its ability to revoke for utilization or lack thereof. So in AFRINIC
today, I would want to maintain legacy status because it protects me from
revocation under RSA, if I was a buyer.

The arguments from RIPE about their inability, due to a lack of contract, to
force a change of status, is disingenuous to me. Sure they can't force
legacy holders to do anything, but can legacy holders force RIPE to process
transfers? Is RIPE bound, contractually or morally, to register transfers of
legacy space in the same way they are bound to maintain existing
registrations and original services to the legacy block owners?  Must legacy
rights be "grandfathered-in"?  I think you can argue that transfers were not
part of the original scope of legacy registrant services, and that the RIRs
do have the right to insist on paid registration of transferred blocks while
at the same time the RIRs continue to  honor the legacy rights of the
original registrants. 

That said, currently the value of legacy status is strictly tied to the lack
of policy restrictions, and registration costs avoided. As policy
restrictions become less restrictive, the added value of legacy status is
merely the registration fee avoidance.

We have brokered transfers of legacy blocks from APNIC and ARIN into RIPE,
maintaining legacy status thereafter. So certainly there are some who
ascribe greater value to legacy blocks, and greatest to RIPE legacy blocks.
This is because RIPE has the least restrictive transfer policies related to
RIPE space. RIPE legacy blocks can be transferred to any entity that the
blocks can be legally sold to.  No demonstration of need, recipient can be a
natural person or any other legal entity, recipient does not need to be an
LIR or RIPE member of any kind, and can be located anywhere in the world.
RIPE will require documentation of the legal chain-of-custody and the sale,
and if the legal documentation is sound, the transfer is processed.

Remember that legacy holders might theoretically be able to legally transfer
ownership rights to their blocks without registry interactions, but where
does that leave the buyer? Almost every buyer wants his title registered
publicly as protection of his assets. So legacy block transfer recipients
have an incentive to comply with policies like needs tests and holding
periods in order to acquire that public Whois registration of
rights-ownership. Why can't we expect them to swallow and accept the change
of legacy designation as an additional cost of acquiring that valuable
registration in the RIR's database? Well, one reason is if they fear that
their blocks will be revoked by an AFRINIC audit process if they aren't used
for their original purpose down the road.

TL;DR:  Legacy blocks have a very slight additional value; AFRINIC RSA
revocation language impacts this decision about legacy status


Regards,
Mike