<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Rudolph,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The difference in outcome in the Microsoft case is
that we would not have had to process the transfer outside of established ARIN
protocols, and we would have saved some of what I believe to be ARIN's largest
asset as we move forward into the ip trading world. That asset is ARIN's
position as a trust authority. ARIN must maintain the viability of whois as
a trusted source for network operators who are asked to broadcast addresses as
well as a trusted source for those seeking verification of ownership/control as
part of a transfer transaction. I believe that if ARIN continues in its role as
a title agency, that is, vetting the chain-of-custody of address transfers, that
its whois will be the most likely candidate to fill the void that the market
will create for a central trust authority.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>ARIN will maintain order and the market will
steward the resources to their most efficient use.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>If ARIN reduces credibility through further
out-of-policy transfers, and it's justification policies impede the flow of
accurate information to whois, we all lose.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rudi.daniel@gmail.com href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">Rudolph
Daniel</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> ; <A
title=mike@sum.net href="mailto:mike@sum.net">mike@sum.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:48
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML
Digest, Vol 70, Issue 141</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>Mike, thanks for this thought provoking post, and it
certainly merits further discussion...
<DIV>....<B>and if</B> <I>'The market will be the best
steward'' </I><B>under a</B> <I>'removing the justification
requirements for ALL transfers, legacy and non-legacy' , </I>then what would
have been the difference in outcome of the MS/Nortel transfer? Or, I guess I
am looking for the advantage to be gained by ARIN and the community over and
beyond what actually transpired. ( I hope that makes sense ) ?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>rd<BR>
<DIV><I><BR></I></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>ny issues.</DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>