[arin-ppml] Microsoft receives court approval for transfer as agreed with ARIN

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Leo - We don't discussion individual registry requests, but the press

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> I have to say I get quite a giggle out of reading we don't talk about
> it, but if you refer to the press release....

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Benson Schliesser
<bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
> On one hand, in this instance I think that the outcome
> is generally what should have happened.  (Except for
> the lack of transparency into negotiated LRSAs.)


Hi Folks,

Transparency issues seem to underpin some of the complaints in this
thread. John assures us that the community's process was followed for
this very large transfer of addresses, but as the developers of that
process we're not allowed to look under the hood and evaluate how the
process actually played out. This is, of course, consistent with the
privacy expectations that we as a community wanted, or at least
thought we wanted.

Should we reconsider the transparency requirements that go in to IPv4
allocations and transfers? Is there a size of IPv4 consumption above
which an organization should not have an expectation of privacy with
respect to their documentation? A consumption so large that it must be
subject to public scrutiny in all details?

Offered as food for thought.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004