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

[John Springer]

Hi Mike,

I am going to rearrange the top post down under the message to which you 
are replying, for clarity, after which I will comment upon your reply, in 
line. I'm getting closer to the point of replying to the actual proposal 
which has a different subject line.

On Thu, 19 May 2011, Mike Burns wrote:
<cut>
>
> ----- 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 
>
<paste>
>
> 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.

I noticed, but not by me, and maybe so, but such claims and requests are 
orthogonal to my objection. I do hear you say though, that you are 
responding to my objections by replying to those other claims.

> 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.

Point taken. My response is that your point is not germane to my 
objection.

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

This is all typical trade press bloviation; guesses, speculation, and all 
equally immaterial. No one cited in that article demonstrates more facts 
than you, and all have less than Curran. It is very embarrassing to me to 
be so publicly and obviously unable to convey the concept: "The detailed 
facts as to whether ARIN policy was followed WRT the MS/NN transfer are 
not and will not be known in time to matter to this proposal". However, no 
amount of speculation, guessing, inferring or wishing by any amount of 
people can possibly provide sufficient grounds for making policy removing 
justified need, IMO.

ARIN policy followed vs I don't think so, CANNOT BE PROVED OR DISPROVED AT 
THIS TIME. This is what non-falsifiable means. It means that continuing to 
assert otherwise is not science or logic, but unsupported denial. It does 
no good to continue to assert/suggest/rebut/inuend or not understand. 
There must be other reasons to support the proposal that we get rid of 
needs assessment, because the volume of posts is very large. Please use 
them. Exclusively. Because this one is no good. Seriously. Perhaps I 
am incurring additional well deserved opprobrium by not recognizing that 
you have conceded this single point.

> 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.

MS and Nortel could also very easily have occured some other irrelevant 
nonsense and it would have had equivalent bearing on the question "Was 
ARIN policy followed?", which was and is just about the only subject of my 
post. "Not ... alone in my perception" is more bandwagon fallacy, 
Argumentum ad populum. Just because there are several of you who assert 
similar things does not prove the assertions.

> 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.

Let's examine this statement:
>>> 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.

This has no value or meaning to me other than to dispute that ARIN policy 
was followed.

>>> 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!

This has no value or meaning to me other than to dispute that ARIN policy 
was followed.

>>> 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 has no value or meaning to me other than to dispute that ARIN policy 
was followed.

So, your statement was correct in that what you said does not involve NDA 
information. The rest of your statement was incorrect though, in that it 
is all intended to refute John Curran's statement that ARIN policy was 
followed WRT to the MS/NN deal. Which I'm sure you have noticed by now, I 
assert may not be actually done with the information currently available.

> 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.

Are you going to come right out and say that you do think you can PROVE 
that ARIN policy was not followed WRT to the MS/NN deal. Because that is 
what is implied in all of these otherwise meaningless assertions.

> 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.

This is getting hard(er) to follow. Are you saying that Ray was involved 
with the MS/NN transfer? If not, any statements that he made while he was 
CEO and/or President must necessarily not be informed by any FACTS of the 
current matter, as he stepped down some time ago. And if he is privy to 
facts not in evidence now, I fail to see how that relates to a statement 
he made long ago.

As far as the "That means to me" section (unclipped text above):

if "deals can be done without notifying ARIN"
OK, so I hear.

andif "not notifying ARIN has little cost in terms of routabilty"
I have heard a lot of hypotheticals about this, maybe yes, maybe no, but 
say OK.

"then the transaction will occur and the community will be in the dark."
I suppose that is possible. But the subject line of this thread 
notwithstanding, I thought you removed any Whois related rationale from 
this proposal. And that this proposal was only about removing the needs 
assessment and exempting proposed transferers from section 12 jeopardy.
This section does not seem to have anything to do with either of those 
proposals.

> Regards,
> Mike

regards,

John Springer