[arin-ppml] Microsoft receives court approval for transfer as agreed with ARIN
stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Apr 28 17:57:02 EDT 2011
On 28-Apr-11 14:15, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 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, though.
There's a policy for that: NRPM 12.
While I agree in general that we should be checking up on transferees,
IMHO it would be unfair to do so when ARIN has demonstrated it is
unwilling to hold non-transferees to the same standard. To be fair, we
must either we check up on everyone (not all at once, obviously) or
check up on no one.
In any event, even if a review were to find Microsoft did not utilize
those addresses as policy requires, there is nothing ARIN can do about
it because they are under LRSA instead of RSA. Presumably, that's why
Microsoft paid $7.5M to Nortel instead of $18k to ARIN.
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3646 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the ARIN-PPML