[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 69, Issue 21

[Rudolph Daniel]

>
> Was this the first widely reported public transaction?
>

RD


>
> Can I be correct in assuming a few things:
>
> The story said most of these numbers are ready to use.  That would
> indicate Nortel had been violating the ARIN minimum utilization
> requirements for years.  Since ARIN had not done an audit that
> pulled these addresses from Nortel am I correct in assuming that
> they had no legal ability to do so - ergo, this is a Legacy block?
>
> If it is a legacy block am I also correct in assuming that once this
> "sale" completes that ARIN is going to realize a spike in it's
> income, as this block is now going to be subject to yearly registration
> renewal fees?
>
> If all of that is true then as these sales happen and more of these
> legacy blocks come online, ARIN's income from fees will rise.
>
> Since ARIN is obligated to not generate a profit can I assume that
> the excess income will result in fee reductions for the rest of us?
>
> After all when your friendly local government gets increased tax revenue
> it reduces taxes, correct?
>
> Or have I just been out in the sun too long ;-)
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:28:21 -0500
> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011
> Message-ID: <4D8BD395.9080509 at umn.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 3/24/11 15:33 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > Org B can do due diligence with ARIN before the purchase and
> > if they don't and org a turns out to be a pig in a poke then
> > org B deserves what they get, in my book.
>
> If Org B ask ARIN about Org A, I'm not sure ARIN would tell them
> anything, at least nothing more than is already published in Whois.  So
> what kind of due diligence is it that you think Org B would or should do
> with ARIN?
>
> > Ted
> >
> > On 3/24/2011 8:26 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> ...
> >> A scenario for illustration:
> >> Org B needs addresses.
> >> Org A tells Org B that they have addresses.
> >> Orgs A and B come to an agreement on price, etc.
> >> Org A writes an LoA for Org B to begin using the addresses.
> >> Org A files an LRSA with ARIN.
> >> ARIN finds that Org A is not authorized to hold nor transfer the
> >> addresses in question.
> >> Org B now has a number of problems...
> >> - wasted time
> >> - wasted money
> >> - using addresses that they must return
> >> - etc...
> >>
> >> I am not trying to argue one way or the other, just pointing out the
> >> piece of this that eluded me at first in case others missed it as
> >> well.
> >> ~Chris
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE      Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:16:14 -0500
> From: Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net>
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011
> Message-ID: <9C29520B-E77C-4954-B67C-AF1E3EB0D121 at queuefull.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi, Scott.
>
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> > As I've done a couple times now, I'd like to expand on my own personal
> > opinions on some of the proposals inline below.
>
> Thank you for your feedback, Scott.  I appreciate your contribution to the
> conversation.
>
> >  I'm not speaking for
> > the AC or anyone else: the AC's actions are captured well below, and
> > further detail on the discussion leading up to them will be available
> > in the minutes.
>
> Do you know when the AC meeting minutes will be posted?  The only 2011
> meeting minutes currently posted at
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html are from the January meeting
> (under the outdated heading "2010").  Does it typically take a month(+) to
> publish these?
>
> >> The AC voted to abandon ARIN-prop-132 for the following reasons:
> >> - Aggregation is one of the goals of addressing stewardship, this
> >> policy  encourages deaggregation, and accelerates routing table growth.
> >> - Creates a situation where the ISP providing the address space is
> >> not in a position to remediate security and abuse issues which may have
> >> significant impact on the larger internet community.
> >> - The AC believes that a discussion about how staff currently handles
> >> this situation is worth having, and suggests the author or a member of
> >> the community submit it as an Open Policy hour topic at the upcoming
> >> ARIN meeting.
> >
> > I was initially sympathetic to this proposal and wanted to make sure
> > the community had a chance to discuss the pros and cons of LIRs that
> > are not ISPs.  However, it seems that we have an example of non-ISP
> > LIRs in the RIPE region, and what I've heard from several folks is
> > that such arrangements cause a lot of problems, and probably would not
> > be worth doing here.  If anyone takes a different lesson from that,
> > I'd love to hear your experiences as well.
>
> I'm confused by your choice of words, and I think it would be useful to
> clarify.  The current NRPM language allows ISPs to assign addresses to their
> customers, but doesn't define what "customer" means.  The text of proposal
> 132 does not explicitly create "non-ISP LIRs", but explicitly allows an ISP
> to act as a LIR for customers that might not be receiving "traditional
> connectivity" services from that ISP.  Granted, this is a nuance - but it's
> worth noting, for operational purposes, that the proposal wouldn't
> necessarily allow non-ISPs to become LIRs.
>
> Having said that, I'm frankly not sure this matters.  As I mentioned above,
> the current policy doesn't define "customer" and I posit that an ISP is
> already free to engage in this behavior.  Proposal 132 was intended to
> clarify existing policy.  The AC "reasons" given for abandoning this
> proposal seem to suggest a preference for the opposite of 132; should we
> expect such a proposal in the near future?
>
> >> The AC has chosen to abandon ARIN-prop-134. Aside from the author, there
> >> were no statements of support on the mailing list, and the majority of
> >> opinion questioned the problem to be solved. While wording can often be
> >> refined during the policy development process, the problem statement
> >> itself needs further clarification. The abandonment of this proposal is
> >> not to dismiss the discussion. It would just be clearer to refine the
> >> problem statement first and submit a proposal if more clarity and
> >> support can be reached on the mailing list.
> >
> > I believe there is actually a substantive problem here that is worth
> > discussing.  At this point I'm not sure if it should be addressed
> > through a new policy proposal, or if it would end up being an ACSP
> > suggestion, though...
>
> I don't have much to say about this, except that I think the standard
> should be documented in an open and transparent way.
>
> If you think there is an alteration that would make prop 134 more
> interesting to the "ARIN community", please feel free to submit a new
> version.  I have no objections to my proposal text being used and/or adapted
> by anybody here.
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:26:37 -0500
> From: Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net>
> To: Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011
> Message-ID: <EAA6AD7B-A984-451C-8F8C-45FA47638F62 at queuefull.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>
> > While honest people
> > may disagree, it is my opinion that the LRSA is not
> > onerous (if one's goal is the be part of the community).
> > The time for dithering is approaching an end.
>
> I'm interested in this term "community" which seems to be so highly valued
> on PPML.  Does "community" refer to participants in PPML?  Attendees at ARIN
> meetings?  Address holders?  The larger community of address stakeholders
> (vendors, operators, users) in the ARIN region?  Or the entire population of
> the region?
>
> My perspective is that a small community at ARIN makes policy that affects
> the larger population of stakeholders, and frequently conflates the two.
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:29:24 -0700
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011
> Message-ID: <4D8BE1E4.3030902 at ipinc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 3/24/2011 4:28 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> > On 3/24/11 15:33 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>
> >> Org B can do due diligence with ARIN before the purchase and
> >> if they don't and org a turns out to be a pig in a poke then
> >> org B deserves what they get, in my book.
> >
> > If Org B ask ARIN about Org A, I'm not sure ARIN would tell them
> > anything, at least nothing more than is already published in Whois. So
> > what kind of due diligence is it that you think Org B would or should do
> > with ARIN?
> >
>
> This is what LOAs are for.
>
> Most likely this kind of transaction would work as follows:
>
> Org A advertises out it's IPv4
>
> Org B sees it and contacts Org A.  They feel each other out
> until they arrive at a price that is contingent on validity.  Org
> A then gives a LOI (letter of intent) listing pricing and a deadline,
> and also gives Org B a LOA allowing Org B to act as Org A's agent
> in dealing with ARIN.  Org B gives Org A an NDA that promises not to
> reveal Org A's dirty underwear to the world.
>
> Org B submits the LOA to ARIN and ARIN reports back that everything
> is OK.  Org B then pays Org A and gets handed a second LOA that allows
> them to execute all the paperwork with ARIN.  Org B does all that and
> signs the transfer docs for Org A and then gets the IP addressing from
> ARIN.
>
> A LOA can easily be written to legally designate Org B to act as
> a proxy for Org A in dealing with ARIN.  If ARIN refused to divulge Org
> A's dirty underwear to Org B then it would be the same as ARIN refusing
> to divulge Org A's dirty underwear to Org A.
>
> Anyway, this is how you would do it directly.  Another way would be
> to find an impartial 3rd party attorney that both Org A and Org B would
> sign over power of attorney to and the 3rd party would escrow the
> money and handle the transaction.  But of course this just fattens up
> the wallets of some lawyer who probably already has swimming pools full
> of money anyway.
>
> Both of these scenarios are legally equivalent from ARIN's POV of
> having Org A ask about itself, or Org B ask about itself.  Org B can
> say to ARIN "I'm the legal equivalent of Org A, are these numbers
> I think I have, valid"  Then Org B can say to ARIN "I'm going to
> execute a transfer for XXX numbers and here is my utilization
> justification will you allow it?"  If the answer to both questions
> is yes, then your good to go.
>
> Obviously ARIN could require Org A to sign an LSRA as a condition of
> transfer, but this is a pointless exercise, since if an LOA was in place
> Org B could do that for Org A anyway, 2 minutes before signing
> the transfer paperwork and the actual RSA.  And in any case the RIR's
> incentive is to get the numbers out of Org A's control since Org
> A is just sitting on them doing nothing with them.
>
> Although several posters said that if they were Org B they could
> insist Org A sign a LSRA before selling, this is actually not a likely
> scenario.  The reason is that Org A is in the power
> position.  They have something that Org B cannot get from anyone else.
> They have absolutely no incentive to deal with the RIR. If Org B doesn't
> like this then they can stuff it and go elsewhere for their IPv4
> addresses.  Org A's can simply sit back and do nothing at all and let
> Org B do all the gruntwork and deal with the RIR and the paperwork.
>
> I've been in these scenarios with other stuff that Org A is so lazy
> that they don't even bother writing the LOA and the LOI and the NDA they
> make Org B do that, then if they like it they sign it.
>
> It's like buying a used car without a title.  I've bought a number of
> them like this over the years.  You save a lot of money because most
> buyers are scared to death if the stuff isn't handed to them on a silver
> platter.  The DMV will tell you if the VIN is stolen and if it is not,
> then you buy the car and file for lost title.  But the chances of
> getting the seller to actually bother to file for lost title themselves
> is almost nil.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> >> Ted
> >>
> >> On 3/24/2011 8:26 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> > ...
> >>> A scenario for illustration:
> >>> Org B needs addresses.
> >>> Org A tells Org B that they have addresses.
> >>> Orgs A and B come to an agreement on price, etc.
> >>> Org A writes an LoA for Org B to begin using the addresses.
> >>> Org A files an LRSA with ARIN.
> >>> ARIN finds that Org A is not authorized to hold nor transfer the
> >>> addresses in question.
> >>> Org B now has a number of problems...
> >>> - wasted time
> >>> - wasted money
> >>> - using addresses that they must return
> >>> - etc...
> >>>
> >>> I am not trying to argue one way or the other, just pointing out the
> >>> piece of this that eluded me at first in case others missed it as
> >>> well.
> >>> ~Chris
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 69, Issue 21
> *****************************************
>



-- 

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
**1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110324/f68be70e/attachment.htm>