[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Thu Dec 8 05:04:57 EST 2011

On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 12/7/2011 11:21 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> 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 believe that this has been corrected in final form of the Order.

> 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.

No intent for a different standard to be used; stand by.

John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list