<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 16-Apr-11 01:21, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">On
4/15/2011 9:28 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 15-Apr-11 20:06, Ted Mittelstaedt
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">What concerns me here is that the
community very much wants these transfer resources to go under
RSA and be subject to fee payments.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And who appointed you spokesman for the entire community?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The vast majority of posters on
this list have stated they want transfers to END UP under an RSA.
The Simplified M&A policy justification stated that - and that
policy was adopted.<br>
<br>
Many posters want the SELLING organization to sign an LRSA first,
before
<br>
even being ALLOWED to "sell"
<br>
<br>
RSA implies fee payments.
<br>
<br>
My statement stands, with backup.</blockquote>
<br>
Non-responsive.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite"> What
about yours?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which statement of mine are you referring to? The only quote from
me above is a question, not a statement.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">With the size of the transfer that would
be a very significant amount
of money every year from the richest company on the planet
into ARINs coffers ...
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That depends on whether it's classified as an assignment or an
allocation. If the former, which I suspect it is, the maximum
maintenance fee would be $100/yr, which Microsoft is already
paying for
other resources. IOW, there would be no net-new recurring
revenue to ARIN.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's fine with me. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So, you do not disagree with the logic? And you admit that this
probably will not result in "a very significant amount
of money every year from the richest company on the planet into
ARINs coffers"?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">
However I think that the amount of IP cannot
be justified unless it's going to MSN, it is just too large. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The details of a specific request are usually under NDA, so we must
trust that ARIN staff is following whatever policy(ies) apply to it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I personally disagree with that fee
structure, but that's not a matter
for PPML.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Neither is this entire discussion on the Nortel transfer,</blockquote>
<br>
Discussion of whether NRPM 8.3 did what we wanted in such a case,
and therefore whether we need new policy for such future cases, is
certainly on-topic for PPML.<br>
<br>
Fees are set by ARIN members, not the community as a whole, and
therefore topical only on the members' list.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Claiming that "they followed the rules"
means nothing because ARIN can
<br>
selectively apply the rules depending on what happened.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
ARIN staff cannot "selectively" apply rules unless the NRPM
explicitly
<br>
gives them the authority to do so, which is rare. What specific
<br>
provision granting such authority in this case are you
referring?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The NRPM has many areas ...</blockquote>
<br>
Non-responsive. I asked for the specific section you're referring
to that applies to this case. However, I'll assume it's section 8.3
since that's the policy we've been told this transfer was processed
under.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">8.3
IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to
<br>
Note 'may be' not 'must be'<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That gives discretion to <i>the applicant</i>. There is no grant
of discretion to <i>ARIN staff</i> in NRPM 8.3.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">The
NRPM routinely uses phrases like "may be" instead of "must be" or
"is required to be" The language in it takes pains in many
sections
to merely strongly encourage and not require things to happen.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The "may"s generally apply to applicants/registrants, as above.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DA93571.1070704@ipinc.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">If we, the community, failed to draft a
policy that handled this
situation the way we want it handled then that's on us, the
community,
and not ARIN staff.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Utter baloney. Section 8.1, 8.2 & 8.3 did not come from the
community. They came from ARIN Board of Trustees use of the
Emergency Policy Development Process, not from the community.</blockquote>
<br>
That is such a gross oversimplification of what happened it doesn't
deserve a response.<br>
<br>
S<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
</pre>
</body>
</html>