[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 12/7/2011 11:21 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:32 AM, John Curran<jcurran at arin.net>  wrote:
>
>>
>> The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and
>> interests "free and clear" to Microsoft.  ARIN filed an objection
>> with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended
>> sale and court order which was satisfactory.  The parties (Nortel
>> and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the
>> addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement
>> (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read
>> "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA
>> and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to
>> this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA".  Microsoft
>> entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN,
>> which delineated their rights applicable to their use of the number
>> resources. In summary, this case's outcome was that it was in all
>> parties interests to deal only with those rights that the Internet
>> number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated were available
>> to the address holder, as opposed to a sale "free and clear" as has
>> been otherwise suggested.
>>
>>
> Sure, but just as is suggested by footnote 9 (iirc) in the current case, the "need" requirements specified by policy may not have fully applied. (We don't know, of course, because the needs justification that may or may not have been provided by Microsoft in that case isn't part of the transparency provided by ARIN to the public.)
>

To elaborate, I refer specifically to Footnote 9 from the Motion for Order

"9 This will likely entail ARIN’s approval of Cerner based on a 
reasonable demonstration of a need for the
addresses (under a standard that is more liberal than their policy for 
transfer of non-legacy numbers)."

I'm not sure where in the NRPM to find a policy that permits a holder of 
legacy resources to transfer to a recipient who, while they are signing 
a form of LRSA, is allowed to use a "more liberal" policy than 8.3's 
"which they can justify under current ARIN policies" (either a 3 or 12 
month window of need, depending on whether Cerner is an end user or ISP 
and/or has previously received resources that are effectively utilized.

Of course, as I pointed out above, just like the Microsoft-as-recipient 
transfer that was discussed previously, we will never know what needs 
justification was or will be provided, and if a standard "more liberal 
than their policy for transfer of non-legacy numbers" will be applied.

Matthew Kaufman