[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[John Curran]

On May 11, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Sorry, it was Owen's concept that these numbers had no exclusive right to use, and thus the sale was a legal fiction.

I believe that all of the parties reached a common understanding with
respect to the intention of the sale, and the judge's order does seem to 
direct accordingly.  As I noted, I believe "use" is clear in context and
that would imply with respect to the registry entries in the ARIN Whois
database and related services.

> I'm sure you know that ip addresses show up as listed assets on asset sales.
> Microsoft payed $7.5 million for some addresses.

So I heard... :)

> I'm tired of the academic arguments about their status as just a valueless string of numbers.
> I suppose I could use 1-800-Flowers on my PBX as an extension number, and that makes those numbers valueless.
> Maybe the judge should have said exclusive right to advertise them on BGP?

That would be a very interesting order, as it would be first be necessary
to determine how that right was created as well as the appropriate process 
for enforcement of it.  It's not really necessary for the outcome that the
parties were seeking (to my best understanding), and might get into an even 
wider range of issues than one would wish to be handled incidentally to a 
bankruptcy proceeding...

/John