[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:06 AM, "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> Also not standard:
>  
> 8.3 called for transfer from the seller to ARIN to be specifically transferred to the buyer. Did Nortel ever transfer addresses to ARIN?
> 8.3 called for a single block

Actually, due to a language error, 8.3 called for the justification to be expressed in a single block, but we as a community failed to communicate our intent in the letter of the policy.

Yes, the clear community intent was for the transfer to be a single block. However, in spite of that clear intent, the actual policy did not manage to state our intent. ARIN did the right thing in following the policy as written rather than attempting to apply fuzzy logic around what the community intended to say. The risks of ARIN second-guessing the communities wording would be far more damaging, IMHO.

Unfortunately, subsequent attempts to correct the language were met with strong resistance and did not achieve consensus. Instead, we further defanged transfer policy by removing the single aggregate phrasing completely.

If anyone wants to propose policy to correctly restore that feature to 8.3, I would support it.

>  
> And lest we all forget, stupid, stupid Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test.
>  

Did they? Or did they forgive $7.5 million in bad debt? I honestly don't know which is the actual case, but, while there are many adjectives I would routinely use to describe said organization, stupid is not one of them. 

In the latter case, one could argue that they got quite the bargain as they arguably received full value instead of some (likely small) fraction of said debt as it was discharged in bankruptcy.

> It’s been over a year, and that transaction still smells.

To some extent, yes, but as more information comes out, I believe it smells less and less.

I think the biggest problem with this one was the lack of transparency. I am inclined to believe (though I haven't seen it) that had ARIN been able to release the actual text of the agreement signed by the receiving party, there would be much less kerfuffle about this.

Owen

>  
>  
>  
> From: Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:45 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand ; Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry
>  
> I love this understatement from Scott: “the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA.”
>  
> To put it more directly, ARIN abandon its policies. We all know what happened here. ARIN begged MSFT not to go ahead with the transaction without acknowledging its policies.
>  
> MSFT was offered an LRSA instead of being required to sign an RSA, as the 8.3 transfer policy clearly states it should, as part of the bargaining process. MSFT agreed to do that, even though it didn’t have to, to be a good citizen.
>  
> Problem now is, major legacy buyers are in a situation of individually bargaining with ARIN; there is no generally applicable policy. 
>  
> Yeah, that’s “non-standard”
>  
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:20 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry
>  
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>  
> <snip>
>  
> I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to.  This means I think everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer.  Of course if Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove I need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need and ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction.
>  
> ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would have to do.  AFAIK (and I'm only aware of what's been publicly posted here to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA.  And since the only real remaining difference between the two is the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter.
>  
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120622/a3c00708/attachment.htm>