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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 4/28/2011 11:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> John,
>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:04 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> Quite possibly...  there is no apparent motivation for them to
>> feel otherwise.  The fact that others (such as network operators)
>> have certain rights to the registry entries (e.g. visibility) is
>> likely lost on many.
>
> ARIN does not have a monopoly on the ability to run a whois server.
> If ARIN refuses to list a transfer that has occurred, it devalues the
> ARIN registry (at least in the eyes of folks who are interested in
> tracking down who is actually using address space).  Devalue the
> registry enough and folks will look elsewhere.

This is the same argument that the "alternate root people" have used for
the last decade to attempt to inject hundreds of additional TDL's into 
the DNS namespace and it has failed.

It is like people claiming they are running a "school" and issuing 
diplomas for $50 over the Internet.

In short it is hogwash.

The admins that run the Internet have collectively decided to accredit
the WHOIS system run by the RIR's.  As long as most of them continue to 
do this, the WHOIS system run by the RIR's will remain the authority on
who is supposed to be using what IP addresses and people are just going 
to have to suck it up.

>
> And you believe the folks who received address space multiple decades
> ago who are stupid, ignorant, and/or evil enough to believe that
> those addresses are theirs buy into the model because?

It makes no difference what they believe it matters what the rest of us
believe who they want to connect to.

Microsoft just blessed the ARIN control of resources.  If Joe Blow with
his little legacy holding decides to go against ARIN then all ARIN does
is go to Microsoft and say "joe blow is a hijacker" and Microsoft will
slam the door to packets from Joe Blow - and he will go gurgling down
the drain.

> Can you point
> to any contractual or other  agreements that would be legally binding
> on legacy holders that would support your view?
>

The Microsoft signature on the LRSA is pretty much it.  Microsoft is
not going to sign anything that binds them to an agreement and then
let a bunch of rabble out there get away without signing the same
agreement.

>
> The reality (at least as I see it) is that at least some legacy
> holders believe (if they consider the question at all) that the IP
> addresses in their inventory are their asset to do with as they
> please.  As far as I can tell, they do not see any positive business
> incentive in participating in a system or process that does not
> recognize this.

People like that will not see the incentive until the day that Microsoft
and others stop accepting their routes.  They are just like the Birthers
wasting their time accosting Obama who all got their pants pulled up
over their heads and tied in a knot the other day.  They don't think
the stove is hot until they get burned.


Ted