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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Apr 30 15:45:02 EDT 2011

The main point of the annual fee is to ensure that there is annual contact and to preserve the validity of a contractual relationship between the resource holder and ARIN.

As such, I believe such a move would be contrary to public interest.


Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2011, at 15:27, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

> In the "Be careful what you wish for" category...
> In message <BANLkTinPFQP6PnLB-usBJX6sXZjpv=OzQw at mail.gmail.com>, 
> Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> - Would resource holders support a model that allowed ARIN to take a
>> small commission on resource sales and then discontinue the practice
>> of charging an annual fee to its members who are not buying and
>> selling resources.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that you had intended to
> say "sales tax" rather than "commission".
> The word "commission" usualy implies a significantly active role in
> mating willing sellers with willing buyers.
> I rather doubt that anyone would like to see ARIN become like a Real
> Estate Agency.  Some, including myself, would probably not mind however
> if ARIN were to evolve into a sort-of "market maker"... *not* in the
> Goldman Sachs model (i.e. where they may sometimes be covertly taking
> a position adverse to those of their own clients) but rather more along
> the lines of the NYSE or CBO.
> Regards,
> rfg
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list