[ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jun 29 18:05:51 EDT 2004

As has been repeatedly pointed out, ARIN cannot enforce anything, their 
is limited only to the refusal to issue new resources.  Once a resource is
allocated it is largely outside of ARIN control and depends almost entirely
on community consensus and self-governance.  I'm not particularly happy 
this state of affairs, but, there is much grief that comes with giving ARIN
more direct power, including U.S. constitutional issues.

It would be good if someone could verify the netblock in question.  I 
read the exact TRO, but, I suspect that NAC could publish an announcement
about the status of the block, possibly including a request that providers
"do the right thing in assisting NAC in complying with the TRO until such
time as a final ruling is made by the court" without violating the terms
of the TRO.

An alternative strategy would be for NAC to enumerate the prefix(es) 
in comments filed in the proceeding.  Since those would then be part of the
public record, NAC or anyone else could publish them.  Heck, has anyone
looked through the entire public record of the current proceeding to verify
that the prefix(es) are not enumerated therein?


--On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:24 -0400 Charles Scott 
<cscott at gaslightmedia.com> wrote:

> Ray:
>   Question? Is this a ruling affecting the provider only, or was ARIN a
> party in this legal action? In otherwords, is this only binding on the
> provider or is it also binding on ARIN. It would seem that if ARIN was
> not  a party in the case, that ARIN may not be bound by the decision. If
> so,  would ARIN still be able to enforce the non-portability of address
> space,  potentially leaving the party who won portability with an empty
> victory?   Can someone provide a link to the full text of the decision?
> Chuck
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ray Plzak wrote:
>> The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this.  Appropriate
>> measures are being considered and will be pursued.  The actions taken by
>> ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record.
>> Raymond A. Plzak
>> President & CEO
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of
>> > Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM
>> > To: ppml at arin.net
>> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them?
>> > (Court says yes!)
>> >
>> > > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be
>> > > considering whether
>> > > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state
>> > > court?
>> >
>> > Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey.

If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20040629/3215255e/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list