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

Daniel Golding dgolding at burtongroup.com
Tue Jun 29 18:52:06 EDT 2004

ARIN's appropriate action is to file an Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court)
Brief with the appropriate court. This should be informational in nature -
the judge probably has no idea what the common industry practices are on
this area.

Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group

On 6/29/04 6:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> As has been repeatedly pointed out, ARIN cannot enforce anything, their
> power
> 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
> about
> 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
> haven't
> 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)
> involved
> 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?
> Owen
> --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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list