[arin-ppml] New IPv4 Transfer policy

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/9/2011 11:02 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 5/9/11 17:11 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Ask ARIN
>>
>> Financially, the fees for the block of numbers that Microsoft got
>> from that transfer are nothing in comparison to what they paid for
>> it, and Microsoft is also known for spending tons of money on
>> useless stuff. So there must have been some difference between
>> the RSA and the LRSA that made Microsoft choose the LRSA and the
>> only thing I can think of is the LRSA is less restrictive in some
>> manner.
>>
>> I suspect we need to have ARIN modify the LRSA. The LRSA was sold
>> to us on the basis that it was the same thing as the RSA without
>> the annual fee. Obviously, the Microsoft lawyers found out that
>> this wasn't true. ARIN has a lot of explaining to do, here.
>>
>> Ted
>
> I'm not sure what you feel you were sold. However, the details of the
> LRSA are not secret, have been published for sometime, and there is more
> than just a difference in fees for Legacy ISPs. Note: Legacy end users
> pay the same annual fees as any other end user.

Microsoft, a company with 80K employees, could not have possibly 
provided justification that would have resulted in 50% utilization of
500K additional IP addresses in 1 year.  Are you proposing the company 
grow 4 times it's existing size in 1 year?  The only possible 
justification would be if they were buying them to reallocate to 
customers in a network the same way that any LIR does.

I fail to see what is to be gained by defending what Microsoft did here.
Insisting that ARIN have them sign an LRSA instead of the RSA is 
deplorable.  For all ARIN's labor they put into handling this transfer 
they get paid $100?

ARIN costs money to run and it isn't the Net Fairies that pay for it. 
It's all the ISP's who are reallocating IP
addresses that pay for ARIN, that is money that is coming out of the
pockets of hard working men and women who build the networks that
allow Joe Blow and Sally Schmoe to get online.

> So, your view on the
> difference, or lack there of, in the fees can vary significantly
> depending on your perspective.

Here's a thought, how about we charge EVERY address holder the same
amount of money that end users pay?

> There has been a FAQ regarding the LRSA
> for sometime as well, the current version is at;
> https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/
>
> It provides an excellent summary of the LRSA, for those who aren't into
> recreationally reading contracts. :) I know the LRSA, and the RSA,
> almost put me to sleep when I had to read it as part of getting my
> organization to sign them. :) I only survived with the assistance of
> multiple caffeinated beverages. :)
>
> I'll also add that a number of improvements have been made in the LRSA
> since its initial version, and a number of these improvements have been
> integrated into the RSA as well, for the benefit of everyone who has
> received resources from ARIN.
>

The problem here is you cannot discern the real difference between the 
RSA and the LRSA just by reading them.  Just as you cannot discern the
real meaning of the NRPM by just reading it.  For example the NRPM
says that transfer recipients sign "RSA"  It is only when you parse the
syntax the way that a lawyer would that you can see that this could
mean an LRSA or an RSA.

I would like to know what the Microsoft lawyers parsed out of the two
documents that made the LRSA so much more attractive.  I can read both
documents and see differences but I don't know how a lawyer would
interpret what those differences are and why one would be so much more
attractive than the other.

Ted