[arin-ppml] Microsoft receives court approval for transfer as agreed with ARIN
jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Apr 28 18:10:02 EDT 2011
On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 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
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML