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

[Jimmy Hess]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
> NDAs are a fact of life in the business world; if folks are obsessed with
> the idea that ARIN's leadership might be lying to us, it's time we figure

No, NDAs are a fact of life for some businesses. ARIN could lay down
their own disclosure (or non-disclosure rules) and refuse to sign anyone
else's NDA, but that still wouldn't mean they should have the ARIN staff
picking random applications and reading off intimate details.

I'm not sure I see a magic distinction why 'large transfer apps' should have to
be available for community review and not others. Discriminating against
large (or small)  applicants is not what needs-based allocation is about.

All applicants can and should be held to the same standards;  with no
more-favorable or less-favorable treatment for any applicant, and no
room for "negotiation" or bending rules in regards to public policy.

Special concessions or requirements should not be added for an applicant
just because the applicant wants them,  or because the community has doubts
about that organization.  Meaning:  if there is any NDA,  or disclosure practice
it should be exactly the same NDA  or disclosure practice, for every
single applicant.



Organizations with justified need for IP addressing would be uncomfortable
going to ARIN, if a full disclosure to the community was required or allowed
as a matter of policy.

Which would  reduce ARIN's effectiveness in getting IP addresses allocated to
networks that need them.

But then again:  given imminent exhaustion, perhaps inefficiency is better.
The less efficient ARIN is, the greater exhaustion will seem to be delayed.


> out how to add an independent auditor to the mix--not expect full public
> disclosure of every detail about every transaction.

One thing ARIN could do is require a standard NDA for _all_ address requests,
with a standard duration applying to the addresses requested under
that application,
and no applicant allowed to offer a NDA longer than the standard duration
or with different terms than the standard one.

Then ARIN could publish the justification, after expiration of the duration,
upon request from community members.

The community would theb have the transparency they want,  and by the time the
delayed release happens,  the information  will be at least  XX months old
and not "tip off" competitors.


A remaining concern would be  that information "too detailed"  isn't released.
e.g.  if ARIN required the applicant to submit copies of documents, such as
copies of ID documents, corporate papers, contracts with third parties, etc.
Or lists of individual hosts.

The community has no business seeing highly detailed information
about applicants' business relationships with vendors, service providers, &c.

--
-JH