[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

I am being assailed with claims that very very few transactions will occur 
which will not meet the ARIN needs requirements.
And requests for proof that these transactions have, and will, occur.
The facts of the matter have been laid out, and all I said was that this 
alignment with ex-post-facto need determination and the already negotiated 
sale was fortuitous.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/051111-nortel-ipv4-sale.html

Per the article above, I am not by any means alone in my perception that the 
MS/Nortel deal very easily could have occurred outside ARIN's purview had 
not the crucial factor of the needs analysis been met.
Nothing that I said in the paragraph you reference is contrary to John 
Curran's answer about the MS/Nortel deal, nor does it involve NDA 
information.
The deal was made and negotiated prior to ARIN's involvement, and should 
other such deals occur, if their needs requirement is not recognized by 
ARIN, the deal goes down off the books. And I reiterate that ARIN head Plzak 
declared that ARIN does not control legacy addresses. That means to me at 
the very least that legacy deals can be done without notifying ARIN, and if 
notifying ARIN requires the transactors to undergo a needs test, and not 
notifying ARIN has little cost in terms of routabilty, then the transaction 
will occur and the community will be in the dark.

Regards,
Mike



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Springer" <springer at inlandnet.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate


> Hi Mike,
>
> Not ready to opine on the proposal yet but I am going to quote and reply 
> to one section of this particular post. Down below.
>
> On Thu, 19 May 2011, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>> As to Microsoft planning leading them to purchasing the same exact need 
>> as ARIN's particular application of its policies at the time of the 
>> transaction?
>> Please.
>> Remember that Microsoft was an arms-length negotiator who was solicited 
>> by the address broker in the deal along with 80 other companies.
>> So Microsoft's planning was so excellent that they could find the exact 
>> amount of addresses they needed in the form of the very first public sale 
>> of legacy addresses ever recorded?
>> That's believable!
>> And their excellent planning staff, whose decision so exactly matched 
>> ARIN's ex-post-facto analysis, failed to inform management that they 
>> could save $7.5 million by getting them directly from ARIN?
>
> This is, IMO, of limited utility. To reiterate, the question of whether or 
> not the MS/NN transfer followed ARIN policy was, IIRC, asked by several 
> and answered rather authoritatively by Curran. The actual detailed facts 
> of the matter are unlikely to be known. Or perhaps, as you point out, 
> there is an NDA with a time limit. Are the detailed facts of the matter so 
> critical that we should wait until they are knowable before deciding on 
> this policy proposal? If not, further assertions such as the above can be 
> true as the night and still be logically useless when trying to refute 
> something that is so completely non-falsifiable. Continuing to put forward 
> such comments only serves to shift attention from otherwise mostly logical 
> and considerable remarks to ones that are neither.
>
> Just sayin'.
>
> John Springer