John, this discussion is a rehash that doesn’t belong here, but what the heck?
“Completely incorrect, as both Microsoft and the Nortel estate ultimately voluntarily agreed to modify the transaction consistent with ARIN's right to review and approve the transaction following ARIN's established policy – what had been sought and was _not_ achieved was some form of legal precedent that ARIN would have to update its registry contrary to community-developed policy.” Not incorrect in the slightest, what happened is that ARIN came late into the picture and cast doubts which were then assuaged by ARIN’s completely bogus (IMO!) and rushed needs-test. Those doubts erased, both parties incorporated ARIN’s role in the ultimate document, but in the form of declarations rather than in legal decisions by the judge that would create precedent. Nowhere and at no time did the judge declare or require that ARIN approval was required for a transfer of legacy resources. Having “the transfer policy in place” had no bearing on this deal until the auction was completed and the deal done. Do you want to get into the public details of that needs-test (the supply side is now public, and exactly matched Microsoft’s need, so we can make inferences)? Do you want to talk about the single aggregate, and the comma? The nebulous delivery schedule of the addresses (some were still in use by Nortel)? The odd coincidence of assorted Nortel acquisitions over decades exactly matching Microsoft’s needs? When those addresses were ultimately announced via BGP? The “modified” LRSA? My point is that ARIN’s role was more like a speedbump than enabler in the process of developing a market, and any implication that ARIN was more than reactionary is not valid. I will credit the board with the foresight to see the need for a transfer policy, and castigate the community which resisted it and put ARIN in the position of trying to cover the Nortel/Microsoft deal in a tissue-paper-thin veneer of policy compliance. I see no need to further this discussion as I think my point has been made and recorded. Regards, Mike From: John Curran <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2021 3:19 PM To: Mike Burns <[email protected]> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System) On 7 Sep 2021, at 2:53 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: My point about the agreements that were used in the auction were correct and “pointed” in that regard, because the whole process (and it was ongoing for at least six months before ARIN apparently got wind of it only after the auction concluded) transpired in complete ignorance of ARIN transfer policies. We were informed because the proposed order would have ARIN update its registry database. Whether the policies were followed or not in the proceedings before that time is fairly irrelevant, as compliance with the policies certainly became quite relevant from that point onwards. Whatever you wrote below about the final agreements is not material, but we could get into the fact that the changes were basically non-functional buyer declarations and did not set any legal precedent. A discussion for another list, maybe? Completely incorrect, as both Microsoft and the Nortel estate ultimately voluntarily agreed to modify the transaction consistent with ARIN's right to review and approve the transaction following ARIN's established policy – what had been sought and was _not_ achieved was some form of legal precedent that ARIN would have to update its registry contrary to community-developed policy. Any transfers prior to Nortel were likely administrative or zero-cost because ARIN still had a free pool. No idea, as ARIN does not seek such information during transfers. Note that all of these pre-Nortel transfers are indeed in the statistics log if you care to review - https://account.arin.net/public/transfer-log The first publicly costed transfer was the salient one, and it was Nortel, Agreed that it was quite salient to the emergence of a “transfer market”, but then again having a transfer policy likely helped a bit (since the alternative could have paralyzed its development for years.) and ARIN was a latecomer and not a catalyst. <chuckle> I don’t think ARIN ever intended to “catalyze a transfer market” – our goal was to enable transfers to occur and that was accomplished – way back in 2009… Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
