[arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP address Transfers

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of Michel Py
> 
> Indeed. Although I do not claim being the spokesperson of the community,
> allow me to contribute that the community is likely not interested in
> the mere fact that there is an agreement, but in knowing the details of
> it.

[Milton L Mueller] 

The details of the NNI-MSFT agreement and ARIN's role in it are available here. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/16/4797025.html 

The accompanying blog post also answers most of the questions posed to me yesterday. 

MSFT signed an LRSA, not an RSA. The specific terms of the LRSA signed by MSFT is not available, although the language suggests that it might be customized to this particular situation. 

Unlike others, I am completely uninterested in fostering any recriminations on ARIN staff for "not following policy." 

The interesting issue here is not whether the transfer followed ARIN policy (it obviously didn't), but what else could have been done. Should ARIN have simply ignored the transaction and let it take place completely outside of its transfer regime? 

When "the community" makes mistakes and real-world events start to pass badly-conceived policies by, what should ARIN staff do? 
Because it is now clear that legacy holders can sell addresses without entering into a contract with ARIN, should the transfer policy be altered to reflect the fact that it is basically a voluntary decision of the buying parties to interface with the ARIN contractual regime? 

I believe this event shows how short-sighted the community is being in deep-sixing Bensons's proposal(s). That would have started a process to deal with this situation more systematically.