[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 141

[Mike Burns]

Hi Rudolph,

The difference in outcome in the Microsoft case is that we would not have had to process the transfer outside of established ARIN protocols, and we would have saved some of what I believe to be ARIN's largest asset as we move forward into the ip trading world. That asset is ARIN's position as a trust authority. ARIN must maintain the viability of whois as a trusted source for network operators who are asked to broadcast addresses as well as a trusted source for those seeking verification of ownership/control as part of a transfer transaction. I believe that if ARIN continues in its role as a title agency, that is, vetting the chain-of-custody of address transfers, that its whois will be the most likely candidate to fill the void that the market will create for a central trust authority.

ARIN will maintain order and the market will steward the resources to their most efficient use.

If ARIN reduces credibility through further out-of-policy transfers, and it's justification policies impede the flow of accurate information to whois, we all lose.

Regards,

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rudolph Daniel 
  To: arin-ppml at arin.net ; mike at sum.net 
  Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 141



  Mike, thanks for this thought provoking post, and it certainly merits further  discussion...
  ....and if  'The market will be the best steward'' under a 'removing the justification requirements for ALL transfers, legacy and non-legacy' , then what would have been the difference in outcome of the MS/Nortel transfer? Or, I guess I am looking for the advantage to be gained by ARIN and the community over and beyond what actually transpired. ( I hope that makes sense ) ?


  rd



  ny issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110429/6955f6e5/attachment.htm>