[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block

[McTim]

On 12/7/11, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>
>>What happens when those chain of custody records no longer point to the
>>current whois record, but, whois is updated to reflect the actual
>>legitimate registrant of the reclaimed block after ARIN noticed that the
>>block was no longer in use by it's proper registrant and was unable to
>>complete a section 8 transfer to the current usurper?
>
>>I would not want to be the organization that had purchased the block in
>>such a situation.
>
>>Owen
>
> I would not want to be the stooge who was allocated the reissued block in
> such a situation.
>
> I bet ARIN's counsel wouldn't want to be in a position to defend a claim of
> tortious interference in a contract.
>
> These silly threats of revokation and reissuance to some poor dupe of a
> registrant betray a real lack of understanding of the role of steward and of
> contract law. And they would be more believable if they had ever occurred in
> the real world. Can you provide an example?

A long time ago and in a different part of the world, I was a RIR
hostmaster,  The  very last thing I did before I left was to revoke a
block (and ASN) that had been "sold" to a guy via an IRC channel.  I
can't attest to the fact that it has been re-issued, but I'm pretty
sure it has been by now.

Hijacked Internet resources are routinely "reclaimed" by RIRs.



>
> A steward doesn't cause havoc by creating conditions whereby a state of
> non-uniqueness exists in our Internet for no good reason.
>
> And taking steps to revoke and reissue legacy numbers involved in a non
> section 8 transfer would be a dangerous fools errand, IMO.

How is this different than a "normal" hijacking case?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel