[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block

Benson Schliesser bensons at queuefull.net
Wed Dec 7 18:09:56 EST 2011

On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> [...] 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.

I'm not a lawyer, so the final answer is: I don't know.  But what I *suspect* is that a RSA at least gives ARIN the legal standing required to intervene. The standard RSA includes language that would seem to deal with the situation you've described, and it would be up to the court to decide if the RSA contract preempts other creditors etc in disposing of the asset.  Based on the language, I'd guess that the usual result would be favorable to ARIN.

Based on this same logic, I also suspect that ARIN could not have objected in the Nortel case because they didn't have standing at the time. I'm hopeful that John will clarify this point, as I requested in my previous email.


1. I am not a lawyer, and nothing in this message should be construed as advice.
2. I, Benson Schliesser, am an employee of Cisco Systems; however, opinions expressed in this email are my own views and not those of Cisco Systems or anybody else.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list