[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-140 Business Failure Clarification

[Owen DeLong]

On May 2, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> 
> On May 2, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I have some concerns with the proposed language.
>> 
>> While I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, it is my understanding
>> that not all types of US bankruptcies are the same.
>> 
>> For example, while it is true that a company often comes out the other side 
>> of a Chapter 11 reorganization as a functioning entity, a totally insolvent
>> company that files a Chapter 7 liquidation is typically disolved/end-of-life/
>> out-of-business for all intents and purposes. 
> 
> Correct. But is it better for their creditors to be paid using the proceeds of an 8.3 transfer, or is it better for ARIN to attempt to reclaim the addresses. It is questionable if the latter would succeed anyway, given that in Chapter 7 the assets (and anything even somewhat like "assets") are frozen... and that the Nortel-Microsoft transfer is an example of how the court treats this.
> 
> Part of the intent here is to bring written policy into agreement with how this is actually being implemented.
> 
I would rather see us lobby for the government to specify that addresses
are not assets and that in Chapter 7 or any other liquidation, address
resources are returned to the respective RIR for distribution according
to community consensus based policies.

In short, I see no reason to give up and accept things as they have
been rather than attempt to improve them, instead.

Owen