[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation onRegistration ServicesAgreement - MORE
mike at iptrading.com
Tue Aug 18 07:54:38 EDT 2015
You are either wrong, or not understanding what I wrote earlier and what I wrote in this thread to Owen.
When Nortel put those blocks up for sale, none of them had ever been registered to Nortel in Whois.
Therefore there were the same kind of inaccurate Whois registrations then as we have now will shell corporate transfers, as a result of Nortel never coming to ARIN to do an 8.2 transfer when they acquired those companies years before.
After the judge approved the sale and during the 30 day period before it was finalized, ARIN must have processed ex-post facto 8.2 transfers to bring those netblocks under Nortel's name, where they were then processed in an 8.3 transfer to Microsoft. Under policy, cough.
You know we have limited data that we can legally and ethically point to to demonstrate the "boogeyman" that Owen claims is not real.
I will keep making the assertion that the Nortel blocks were not registered to Nortel in the many years between their acquisitions of the companies to whom these blocks were registered, and the late 2010 auction, which which I was involved. I still have the documentation going along with the original auction, do you want to see these to confirm what I say?
You keep saying I am making false statements, tell me again what I wrote, at any time, was not accurate.
The Nortel blocks were not registered to Nortel when they went up for sale. Period.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Curran
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Owen DeLong ; arin-consult at arin.net
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation onRegistration ServicesAgreement - MORE
On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
However we do have access to a very few public transactions like the famous Nortel sale of a bunch of blocks, none of which referenced Nortel in Whois. Real, not boogeyman. Because the relevant 8.2 transfers did not happen (ex post facto, they did).
Your Nortel reference is incorrect, as it is _very_ clear in the case of a bankruptcy
that nothing is transferred until the court approves the order; in the Nortel case,
the court approved a revised sale order only after ARIN reviewed the facts
and concurred. You made a similar errant assertion on the ppml mailing
list on 3 June 2015, and I noted at that time your recollection was off -
I do believe there is real potential of exactly what you assert is happening, i.e.
there are likely 'shell corporations are being bought and sold for their IPv4 assets
without notice to ARIN’ - it is just your particular cite is almost the opposite case
(where ARIN is formally notified prior to approval and gets quite involved in the
review and approval as a result)
The same thing happens today. We tell clients in these cases where they acquire shell corporations that they are free to apply for an 8.2 transfer if they wish to see the addresses registered in their name. If they don't want to undergo the process, they have the option of simply relying on their legal documentation of company ownership to verify their ownership rights, and leave the block in the acquired company's name at ARIN.
This proposed version of the RSA would directly affect holders who were acquiring addresses in this way who also held other blocks. What do you think their option will be when you put another obstacle in the way of those might consider bringing some blocks under RSA?
To be clear, the _present_ RSA and LRSA have the language which you object to,
and the proposed versions change some (but not all) of the general references to
“number resources” to “included number resources.”… i.e. this is an existing
situation which is the proposed RSA fails to address, not a new condition which
would be caused by the proposed RSA.
President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-consult