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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed May 11 19:59:46 EDT 2011

On May 11, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/11/2011 2:12 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> ARIN later revealed the policy utilized to be NRPM 8.3, which requires four things which may or may not have actually happened:
>> 1. Addresses are supposed to be issued back to ARIN and then reissued to the recipient, Microsoft, and the bankruptcy docs did not reveal this happened in any way.
> 8.3 doesn't say that. It says "released", and ARIN says the release was sufficient for their needs.
It says "released TO ARIN".

I'm not sure that I see a meaningful difference between "issued back to", "released to", or "returned to",
but, if you believe the words somehow have a significantly different meaning, that's fine. Point is that
the addresses do not flow from the transferor to the transferee, they flow from the transferor to ARIN
to the transferee.

>> 2. Address are supposed to be transferred as a single aggregate, but if the addresses were an assortment of netblocks from prior Nortel acquisitions, this could not have happened.
> ARIN says they read that part of 8.3 as applying to the needs assessment and NOT to the transfer... in other words the "need" is based on a single aggregate but >1 block can be part of a transfer. Doesn't matter, because you can just do multiple serial transfers to get around this if it is read the other way.
Yes, this appears to me to be misinterpretation by ARIN staff of language that was accidentally
and unexpectedly vague in its intent. While I believe that the community intent in the policy was
clear and that the staff interpretation is arguably nonsensical, the fact remains that it is a valid
gramatical construction of the policy as it exists and I support resolving this difference.

>> 3. Recipients were required to sign an RSA, MS signed a modified LRSA.
> LRSA is "an RSA". (Not that RSA is even defined in the NRPM... I have a proposal that fixes this)
Indeed, the policy language here is also unfortunately ambiguous and I support resolving
this as well. I believe that the intent of the community was for recipients to sign a standard
current RSA and not any form of legacy RSA.

>> 4. Finally, the requirement at issue here, a needs analysis had to be completed by ARIN, which magically showed that MS qualified for exactly the amount already bid for and negotiated the sale of.
> Needs assessment is under NDA, so we'll never know.
It is not unlikely that Micr0$0ft bid for exactly what they needed, so, I fail to see why this
is regarded as so unlikely.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list