[arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP address Transfers
matthew at matthew.at
Sun Apr 17 12:18:07 EDT 2011
On 4/16/2011 11:22 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Kaufman<matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> Given that policy appears to not have been followed in this case, why should
>> I bother suggesting any additions or changes to policy?
> The operative word in the above is "appears", and as we all know
> appearances can be deceiving.
Yes, but trust can be lost when deceiving appearances aren't cleared up.
> We had the same "appearances" raised by IGP a while back when Comcast
> got a /9. I for one take IGP blog postings with more than a pinch of
In this case I'm reading the actual filings with the court, which
clearly show that the buyer and seller now know about ARIN's transfer
process and yet the buyer has stated that their only third-party issue
is signing the LRSA. So either they're confused and ARIN will clear that
up with them and the community, or they're right and ARIN will explain
this to the community (in which case policy still isn't being followed,
but at least there might be a good explanation), or they're right and
ARIN *won't* explain it and we'll simply need to come up with our own
theories as to why policy wasn't followed.
More information about the ARIN-PPML