<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Was this the first widely reported public transaction?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>RD </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Can I be correct in assuming a few things:<br>
<br>
The story said most of these numbers are ready to use. That would<br>
indicate Nortel had been violating the ARIN minimum utilization<br>
requirements for years. Since ARIN had not done an audit that<br>
pulled these addresses from Nortel am I correct in assuming that<br>
they had no legal ability to do so - ergo, this is a Legacy block?<br>
<br>
If it is a legacy block am I also correct in assuming that once this<br>
"sale" completes that ARIN is going to realize a spike in it's<br>
income, as this block is now going to be subject to yearly registration<br>
renewal fees?<br>
<br>
If all of that is true then as these sales happen and more of these<br>
legacy blocks come online, ARIN's income from fees will rise.<br>
<br>
Since ARIN is obligated to not generate a profit can I assume that<br>
the excess income will result in fee reductions for the rest of us?<br>
<br>
After all when your friendly local government gets increased tax revenue<br>
it reduces taxes, correct?<br>
<br>
Or have I just been out in the sun too long ;-)<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:28:21 -0500<br>
From: David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>><br>
To: Ted Mittelstaedt <<a href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4D8BD395.9080509@umn.edu">4D8BD395.9080509@umn.edu</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 3/24/11 15:33 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:<br>
><br>
> Org B can do due diligence with ARIN before the purchase and<br>
> if they don't and org a turns out to be a pig in a poke then<br>
> org B deserves what they get, in my book.<br>
<br>
If Org B ask ARIN about Org A, I'm not sure ARIN would tell them<br>
anything, at least nothing more than is already published in Whois. So<br>
what kind of due diligence is it that you think Org B would or should do<br>
with ARIN?<br>
<br>
> Ted<br>
><br>
> On 3/24/2011 8:26 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:<br>
...<br>
>> A scenario for illustration:<br>
>> Org B needs addresses.<br>
>> Org A tells Org B that they have addresses.<br>
>> Orgs A and B come to an agreement on price, etc.<br>
>> Org A writes an LoA for Org B to begin using the addresses.<br>
>> Org A files an LRSA with ARIN.<br>
>> ARIN finds that Org A is not authorized to hold nor transfer the<br>
>> addresses in question.<br>
>> Org B now has a number of problems...<br>
>> - wasted time<br>
>> - wasted money<br>
>> - using addresses that they must return<br>
>> - etc...<br>
>><br>
>> I am not trying to argue one way or the other, just pointing out the<br>
>> piece of this that eluded me at first in case others missed it as<br>
>> well.<br>
>> ~Chris<br>
<br>
--<br>
===============================================<br>
David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota<br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:612-626-0815">612-626-0815</a><br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:612-812-9952">612-812-9952</a><br>
===============================================<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:16:14 -0500<br>
From: Benson Schliesser <<a href="mailto:bensons@queuefull.net">bensons@queuefull.net</a>><br>
To: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:9C29520B-E77C-4954-B67C-AF1E3EB0D121@queuefull.net">9C29520B-E77C-4954-B67C-AF1E3EB0D121@queuefull.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Hi, Scott.<br>
<br>
On Mar 23, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:<br>
<br>
> As I've done a couple times now, I'd like to expand on my own personal<br>
> opinions on some of the proposals inline below.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your feedback, Scott. I appreciate your contribution to the conversation.<br>
<br>
> I'm not speaking for<br>
> the AC or anyone else: the AC's actions are captured well below, and<br>
> further detail on the discussion leading up to them will be available<br>
> in the minutes.<br>
<br>
Do you know when the AC meeting minutes will be posted? The only 2011 meeting minutes currently posted at <a href="https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html</a> are from the January meeting (under the outdated heading "2010"). Does it typically take a month(+) to publish these?<br>
<br>
>> The AC voted to abandon ARIN-prop-132 for the following reasons:<br>
>> - Aggregation is one of the goals of addressing stewardship, this<br>
>> policy encourages deaggregation, and accelerates routing table growth.<br>
>> - Creates a situation where the ISP providing the address space is<br>
>> not in a position to remediate security and abuse issues which may have<br>
>> significant impact on the larger internet community.<br>
>> - The AC believes that a discussion about how staff currently handles<br>
>> this situation is worth having, and suggests the author or a member of<br>
>> the community submit it as an Open Policy hour topic at the upcoming<br>
>> ARIN meeting.<br>
><br>
> I was initially sympathetic to this proposal and wanted to make sure<br>
> the community had a chance to discuss the pros and cons of LIRs that<br>
> are not ISPs. However, it seems that we have an example of non-ISP<br>
> LIRs in the RIPE region, and what I've heard from several folks is<br>
> that such arrangements cause a lot of problems, and probably would not<br>
> be worth doing here. If anyone takes a different lesson from that,<br>
> I'd love to hear your experiences as well.<br>
<br>
I'm confused by your choice of words, and I think it would be useful to clarify. The current NRPM language allows ISPs to assign addresses to their customers, but doesn't define what "customer" means. The text of proposal 132 does not explicitly create "non-ISP LIRs", but explicitly allows an ISP to act as a LIR for customers that might not be receiving "traditional connectivity" services from that ISP. Granted, this is a nuance - but it's worth noting, for operational purposes, that the proposal wouldn't necessarily allow non-ISPs to become LIRs.<br>
<br>
Having said that, I'm frankly not sure this matters. As I mentioned above, the current policy doesn't define "customer" and I posit that an ISP is already free to engage in this behavior. Proposal 132 was intended to clarify existing policy. The AC "reasons" given for abandoning this proposal seem to suggest a preference for the opposite of 132; should we expect such a proposal in the near future?<br>
<br>
>> The AC has chosen to abandon ARIN-prop-134. Aside from the author, there<br>
>> were no statements of support on the mailing list, and the majority of<br>
>> opinion questioned the problem to be solved. While wording can often be<br>
>> refined during the policy development process, the problem statement<br>
>> itself needs further clarification. The abandonment of this proposal is<br>
>> not to dismiss the discussion. It would just be clearer to refine the<br>
>> problem statement first and submit a proposal if more clarity and<br>
>> support can be reached on the mailing list.<br>
><br>
> I believe there is actually a substantive problem here that is worth<br>
> discussing. At this point I'm not sure if it should be addressed<br>
> through a new policy proposal, or if it would end up being an ACSP<br>
> suggestion, though...<br>
<br>
I don't have much to say about this, except that I think the standard should be documented in an open and transparent way.<br>
<br>
If you think there is an alteration that would make prop 134 more interesting to the "ARIN community", please feel free to submit a new version. I have no objections to my proposal text being used and/or adapted by anybody here.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
-Benson<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:26:37 -0500<br>
From: Benson Schliesser <<a href="mailto:bensons@queuefull.net">bensons@queuefull.net</a>><br>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:EAA6AD7B-A984-451C-8F8C-45FA47638F62@queuefull.net">EAA6AD7B-A984-451C-8F8C-45FA47638F62@queuefull.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:<br>
<br>
> While honest people<br>
> may disagree, it is my opinion that the LRSA is not<br>
> onerous (if one's goal is the be part of the community).<br>
> The time for dithering is approaching an end.<br>
<br>
I'm interested in this term "community" which seems to be so highly valued on PPML. Does "community" refer to participants in PPML? Attendees at ARIN meetings? Address holders? The larger community of address stakeholders (vendors, operators, users) in the ARIN region? Or the entire population of the region?<br>
<br>
My perspective is that a small community at ARIN makes policy that affects the larger population of stakeholders, and frequently conflates the two.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
-Benson<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:29:24 -0700<br>
From: Ted Mittelstaedt <<a href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</a>><br>
To: David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4D8BE1E4.3030902@ipinc.net">4D8BE1E4.3030902@ipinc.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 3/24/2011 4:28 PM, David Farmer wrote:<br>
> On 3/24/11 15:33 CDT, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Org B can do due diligence with ARIN before the purchase and<br>
>> if they don't and org a turns out to be a pig in a poke then<br>
>> org B deserves what they get, in my book.<br>
><br>
> If Org B ask ARIN about Org A, I'm not sure ARIN would tell them<br>
> anything, at least nothing more than is already published in Whois. So<br>
> what kind of due diligence is it that you think Org B would or should do<br>
> with ARIN?<br>
><br>
<br>
This is what LOAs are for.<br>
<br>
Most likely this kind of transaction would work as follows:<br>
<br>
Org A advertises out it's IPv4<br>
<br>
Org B sees it and contacts Org A. They feel each other out<br>
until they arrive at a price that is contingent on validity. Org<br>
A then gives a LOI (letter of intent) listing pricing and a deadline,<br>
and also gives Org B a LOA allowing Org B to act as Org A's agent<br>
in dealing with ARIN. Org B gives Org A an NDA that promises not to<br>
reveal Org A's dirty underwear to the world.<br>
<br>
Org B submits the LOA to ARIN and ARIN reports back that everything<br>
is OK. Org B then pays Org A and gets handed a second LOA that allows<br>
them to execute all the paperwork with ARIN. Org B does all that and<br>
signs the transfer docs for Org A and then gets the IP addressing from<br>
ARIN.<br>
<br>
A LOA can easily be written to legally designate Org B to act as<br>
a proxy for Org A in dealing with ARIN. If ARIN refused to divulge Org<br>
A's dirty underwear to Org B then it would be the same as ARIN refusing<br>
to divulge Org A's dirty underwear to Org A.<br>
<br>
Anyway, this is how you would do it directly. Another way would be<br>
to find an impartial 3rd party attorney that both Org A and Org B would<br>
sign over power of attorney to and the 3rd party would escrow the<br>
money and handle the transaction. But of course this just fattens up<br>
the wallets of some lawyer who probably already has swimming pools full<br>
of money anyway.<br>
<br>
Both of these scenarios are legally equivalent from ARIN's POV of<br>
having Org A ask about itself, or Org B ask about itself. Org B can<br>
say to ARIN "I'm the legal equivalent of Org A, are these numbers<br>
I think I have, valid" Then Org B can say to ARIN "I'm going to<br>
execute a transfer for XXX numbers and here is my utilization<br>
justification will you allow it?" If the answer to both questions<br>
is yes, then your good to go.<br>
<br>
Obviously ARIN could require Org A to sign an LSRA as a condition of<br>
transfer, but this is a pointless exercise, since if an LOA was in place<br>
Org B could do that for Org A anyway, 2 minutes before signing<br>
the transfer paperwork and the actual RSA. And in any case the RIR's<br>
incentive is to get the numbers out of Org A's control since Org<br>
A is just sitting on them doing nothing with them.<br>
<br>
Although several posters said that if they were Org B they could<br>
insist Org A sign a LSRA before selling, this is actually not a likely<br>
scenario. The reason is that Org A is in the power<br>
position. They have something that Org B cannot get from anyone else.<br>
They have absolutely no incentive to deal with the RIR. If Org B doesn't<br>
like this then they can stuff it and go elsewhere for their IPv4<br>
addresses. Org A's can simply sit back and do nothing at all and let<br>
Org B do all the gruntwork and deal with the RIR and the paperwork.<br>
<br>
I've been in these scenarios with other stuff that Org A is so lazy<br>
that they don't even bother writing the LOA and the LOI and the NDA they<br>
make Org B do that, then if they like it they sign it.<br>
<br>
It's like buying a used car without a title. I've bought a number of<br>
them like this over the years. You save a lot of money because most<br>
buyers are scared to death if the stuff isn't handed to them on a silver<br>
platter. The DMV will tell you if the VIN is stolen and if it is not,<br>
then you buy the car and file for lost title. But the chances of<br>
getting the seller to actually bother to file for lost title themselves<br>
is almost nil.<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>> Ted<br>
>><br>
>> On 3/24/2011 8:26 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:<br>
> ...<br>
>>> A scenario for illustration:<br>
>>> Org B needs addresses.<br>
>>> Org A tells Org B that they have addresses.<br>
>>> Orgs A and B come to an agreement on price, etc.<br>
>>> Org A writes an LoA for Org B to begin using the addresses.<br>
>>> Org A files an LRSA with ARIN.<br>
>>> ARIN finds that Org A is not authorized to hold nor transfer the<br>
>>> addresses in question.<br>
>>> Org B now has a number of problems...<br>
>>> - wasted time<br>
>>> - wasted money<br>
>>> - using addresses that they must return<br>
>>> - etc...<br>
>>><br>
>>> I am not trying to argue one way or the other, just pointing out the<br>
>>> piece of this that eluded me at first in case others missed it as<br>
>>> well.<br>
>>> ~Chris<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 69, Issue 21<br>
*****************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><img src="http://api.ning.com/files/60Dc*7fMSnOD5inYWvnElhieb2y*e2O798iHVa48vgYOJUmz33g1MSmWAGQs0M2C7g4LXqAu0KvJ0c99k3kSouZfig33AnNo/emaillogo.jpg" height="61" width="58"><br>
<div>Rudi Daniel<div><i><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">danielcharles consulting</a><br></i><b><span style="font-size:large"><font color="#006600"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">1-784 498 8277</a></font></span></b></div>
<div><font color="#006600"><span style="font-size:large"><b><br></b></span></font><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div></div></div><br>