[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Apr 27 10:50:41 EDT 2011

On Apr 27, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:50:21PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> It is because of this I am most curious about Microsoft's motives
>>> in this case.  They appear to have paid a huge sum for something
>>> they could have gotten much cheaper directly from ARIN, and done
>>> it in a way that may not have gotten ARIN's recognition.  Of course
>>> the bankruptcy court just wants cash, and doesn't care about any
>>> of these things.
>> But they couldn't have got it cheaper because they obviously don't
>> meet utilization requirements, not now, and not anytime within the
>> next year.

I'm not sure Ted has any basis for this claim. The utilization of a /20
is well within reach of an organization the size of Micr0$0ft in a 12
month period. I have little trouble believing that they could easily
have justified such. John Curran has claimed that they did provide
a needs-basis justification which was reviewed and accepted by
ARIN staff. I have no reason to doubt his word on this.

Ted, if you have some basis for your claim that they "obviously
don't meet utilization requirements", could you please provide
some supporting documentation to back it up?

Absent evidence to the contrary, I think
that ARIN staff and the CEO deserve the benefit of the doubt
on this point.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list