[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Jul 19 22:43:30 EDT 2012
I would just throw this out then, how realistic is it really - for ARIN and this Community to try and manage the Internet number resources for the Americas, when the vast majority of the organizations that hold Legacy assignments - are not participating? Then I would ask, WHY realistically are they not participating? Could it be that they don't trust this Community which is made up of a minority of the organizations utilizing the Internet in the Americas? I can't read their minds but their inaction speaks volumes. So my final question then becomes, realistically - what is the prudent course to get them to participate? That is the course this Community ought to be following. That is the Win-Win-Win situation.
Steven L Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Blecker, Christoph [mailto:christoph.blecker at ubc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:20 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Lindsey, Marc; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer
And then there are those of us who are a little more realistic about things and know that the answer lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
Does ARIN have the right? Probably. Would it be good stewardship to start revoking people's resources without an extremely good reason? Absolutely not. Is that what we're talking about? Nope, not at all.
Bringing the discussion back to prop-173:
I have to think about it a bit more, but I think I could actually get behind a removal for the needs-basis for 8.2 M&A transfers. I think it's silly to drive more distance between "legacy" and "non-legacy" resources, so I wouldn't support that part. If we're going to remove the needs-basis, do it for all resources.
It's math.. if you have one company that has a /24 and it buys another company with a /24... if both already have the 80% utilization they need, then the result will still be over 80%. The only time they won't is if one company isn't up to 80% utilization (such as they have legacy resources that don't have this requirement). So ASSUMING that both parties to the M&A are "in compliance" isn't too much of a stretch, really. Removing it, just removes the opportunity to audit the entities as a side effect of an M&A.
The reason I'd consider supporting this is because M&A transfers aren't about the number resources. It's a company, buying a whole different company. They're getting a lot more then just the rights to some numbers, they're getting physical assets. This is *VERY* different then 8.3 transfers where you're transferring JUST the numbers without the physical assets. Everything I'm saying here is predicated on the fact that we are talking about an entire company (or at least the networking part with the physical networking assets) being acquired via a merger or acquisition, not number resources that are being monetized by an entity.
I'd be interested to know if ARIN staff has any rough numbers about how many M&A transfers have resulted in number resources being returned/reclaimed/aggregated/transferred to bring the entity into compliance.
At this time, I don't support as written, but would consider supporting with a removal of all the complicating text about legacy resources and just remove the needs-basis for M&A transfers all together.
The University of British Columbia
On 2012-07-19, at 5:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Viewing posts to this forum over time, I have concluded that there are a lot of folks who’s opinion is that ARIN should just take control of all legacy resources and manage them however they please with input from this forum. Then there are a lot of folks who’s opinion is that ARIN essentially doesn’t have authority over the Legacy holders resources. Certainly all members of this forum have an equal right to their opinion and an equal right to express them here.
> I’m not sure which holders of /8’s and other large blocks are still in Legacy status but the list reads like a who’s who of Fortune 500 companies. I don’t ever see comments from those companies stating their opinions in this forum, but you can be sure their attorney’s would have an opinion and would act decisively should ARIN and this forum of Members ever try and reclaim (take) those Legacy resources away from them.
> As a Legacy holder of one measly /24 block it is my opinion that ARIN and the members of this Forum don’t have the right to just reclaim (take) those resources away from Legacy holders. That is just my opinion and I’m entitled to it - and as a member I can share it in a constructive manner.
> Based on some off forum email messages I’ve received I think that there are a lot of Members who would completely agree with me. I sense that many have tried in the past to share their view in this forum, and have tired of trying to convince this community to embrace the Legacy community in a reasonable prudent way for all and join with them in ARIN’s mission of furthering Internet usage.
> Maybe the prudent thing to do is hold a vote and encourage every member to vote ,even Members that rarely if ever post to this Forum. I’m guessing that there would be a lot of Members voting - and seeing a healthy vote total might be the common ground needed to fairly and prudently address the Legacy holders and non-Legacy Holders need to work together for the common mission.
> I strongly disagree with Larry’s comments but I do share his desire to see this resolved once and for all.
> Steven L Ryerse
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Lindsey, Marc
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:17 PM
> To: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer
> Dear Larry,
> You wrote: It seams to me that we will be continually besieged with these proposals . . . . Needless to say I don't support the proposal and am tired of the argument associated with it. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Lindsey but I thought that the list made it's wishes clear before.
> <<< M Lindsey Reply>>> As far as I know, the proposal is still under consideration and has not been abandoned by the AC. There have been both supporters and detractors of the prior drafts. I have read and considered comments from the critics, supporters and ARIN staff, and have revised the proposal text several times in an attempt to address many (but certainly not all) of the concerns raised.
> Notwithstanding your apparent weariness of entertaining viewpoints that differ from your own, in my opinion the PPML is a valuable policy development tool because many on the list (including me) are willing to keep an open mind, revisit their prior assumptions, and consider the merits of contrary arguments.
> But I have noted your general objection to this policy and others like it, and I’ll consider any further responses from you on the topic as a less disrespectful <delete>.
> Marc Lindsey
> Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
> 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: (202) 857-2564
> Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML