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

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Apr 28 15:15:19 EDT 2011

On 4/27/2011 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, John Curran<jcurran at arin.net>  wrote:
>> Leo - We don't discussion individual registry requests, but the press
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Leo Bicknell<bicknell at ufp.org>  wrote:
>> I have to say I get quite a giggle out of reading we don't talk about
>> it, but if you refer to the press release....
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Benson Schliesser
> <bensons at queuefull.net>  wrote:
>> On one hand, in this instance I think that the outcome
>> is generally what should have happened.  (Except for
>> the lack of transparency into negotiated LRSAs.)
> Hi Folks,
> Transparency issues seem to underpin some of the complaints in this
> thread. John assures us that the community's process was followed for
> this very large transfer of addresses, but as the developers of that
> process we're not allowed to look under the hood and evaluate how the
> process actually played out. This is, of course, consistent with the
> privacy expectations that we as a community wanted, or at least
> thought we wanted.
> Should we reconsider the transparency requirements that go in to IPv4
> allocations and transfers? Is there a size of IPv4 consumption above
> which an organization should not have an expectation of privacy with
> respect to their documentation? A consumption so large that it must be
> subject to public scrutiny in all details?

The fact is that transparency isn't important for the justification
end of things if you think about it.  As long as 80% of the IPv4 
addresses that Microsoft got from the sale go into use within 12 months
or whatever their utilization requirement is, then we don't need to
have transparency there.  We DO need to have someone following up
and making sure this happens on these very large public consumptions,

We need transparency in how the transfer took place - did the 
transferree go under RSA or LRSA - and after enough bitching and
complaining it looks like we got that.  ARIN is sliming out of it by
creatively interpreting the letter of the transfer policy rather
than the obvious intent - but that just means that we know now that
we can't trust them to follow the intent and we need to revise the


> Offered as food for thought.
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list