[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Wed Dec 7 17:26:06 EST 2011



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:22 PM
> To: Benson Schliesser
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Chris Engel wrote:
> >
> >>> Full sentence:
> >>> "While the Debtors believe that this Court has the authority to
> authorize
> >>> the sale of the Internet Addresses over any such objection by ARIN,
> the
> >>> IA Sale contains a condition of ARIN's consent and the proposed order
> >>> incorporates various protections of ARIN's rights, which moots any
> need
> >>> to consider any of these issues."
> >>
> >> Sounds like pretty reasonable wording to me. In the first part they
> don't concede anything, just in case something bizarre happened where they
> did want to try to proceed without ARIN.  In the second they avoid all
> that mess by opting to make sure they get ARIN's approval for the
> transaction regardless (which is pretty sensible in preserving the value
> of the assets).  If they didn't put in the "While the Debtors believe..."
> part it'd probably be alot tougher for them to try to make a case to
> proceed without ARIN, IF they felt they needed to do so for some reason.
> By putting that in, it simply looks like their trying to preserve their
> options.
> >>
> I was just thinking and in this context it was about how to additional
> monetize IPv4 assets. At this point I'd be looking at _all_ bankruptcy
> proceedings to make sure that nothing has been lost in "registration"
> and insuring that parties knew about lost v4 assets and perhaps
> conducting business on a finders fee basis. It sort of dawned on me
> that this would apply to non-legacy space for transfer as well,
> wouldn't it? I mean, if you can sell legacy assets without
> interference from ARIN for the most part, can't you also transfer
> non-legacy assets without too much interference from ARIN? While there
> is an agreement (and I'll sign up for your IANAL disclaimer as well
> and I hope other non lawyers may too), but there seems to be a
> distinct possibility that this has far more implications than just
> legacy addresses, at least in bankruptcy.
> Best,
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111207/4e01d9a8/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list