<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23644">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You are either wrong, or not understanding what I
wrote earlier and what I wrote in this thread to Owen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>When Nortel put those blocks up for sale, none of
them had ever been registered to Nortel in Whois.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You know we have limited data that we can legally
and ethically point to to demonstrate the "boogeyman" that Owen claims is not
real.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You keep saying I am making false statements, tell
me again what I wrote, at any time, was not accurate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The Nortel blocks were not registered to Nortel
when they went up for sale. Period.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,<BR>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </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=jcurran@arin.net href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">John Curran</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@iptrading.com
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com">Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=owen@delong.com
href="mailto:owen@delong.com">Owen DeLong</A> ; <A title=arin-consult@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-consult@arin.net">arin-consult@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 17, 2015 8:51
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ARIN-consult]
[arin-announce] Reminder: Consultation onRegistration ServicesAgreement -
MORE</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Mike Burns <<A
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com">mike@iptrading.com</A>> wrote:<BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">...<BR>
<DIV>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).<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Mike - </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Your Nortel reference is incorrect, as it is _very_ clear in
the case of a bankruptcy </DIV>
<DIV> that nothing is transferred until the court approves the
order; in the Nortel case,</DIV>
<DIV> the court approved a revised sale order only after ARIN
reviewed the facts </DIV>
<DIV> and concurred. You made a similar errant assertion on
the ppml mailing </DIV>
<DIV> list on 3 June 2015, and I noted at that time your
recollection was off - </DIV>
<DIV> <<A
href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2015-June/029988.html">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2015-June/029988.html</A>></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I do believe there is real potential of exactly what you
assert is happening, i.e. </DIV>
<DIV> there are likely 'shell corporations are being bought and
sold for their IPv4 assets </DIV>
<DIV> without notice to ARIN’ - it is just your particular cite is
almost the opposite case </DIV>
<DIV> (where ARIN is formally notified prior to approval and gets
quite involved in the</DIV>
<DIV> review and approval as a result)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>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.<BR><BR>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?<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV> To be clear, the _present_ RSA and LRSA have the
language which you object to, </DIV>
<DIV> and the proposed versions change some (but not all) of the
general references to</DIV>
<DIV> “number resources” to “included number resources.”…
i.e. this is an existing </DIV>
<DIV> situation which is the proposed RSA fails to address, not a
new condition which </DIV>
<DIV> would be caused by the proposed RSA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>/John</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>John Curran</DIV>
<DIV>President and CEO</DIV>
<DIV>ARIN</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>