[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 07:11:56AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> Again, it's completely and utterly unclear what the federal judge
> thought the assets in this regard actually constituted. Further, the
> judge made it very clear that the transfer was subject to the terms
> of the registration services agreement between ARIN and Micr0$0ft. It
> seems to me that the federal bankruptcy judge ruled very clearly that
> ARIN did have authority over the registration of the transfer.

The court's ruling in the Microsoft case is a red herring.  What one
bankruptcy judge said about one transfer in one bankruptcy case, in a
decision that was not appealed, is of minimal value going forward.  I
agree with what you've written above; but it's not precedent that can
be used with much effect in any other case.  (This works both ways. 
Even if the judge said and meant exactly what Mike thinks he said and
meant, it's still not useful for much.)

Sure, future litigants might refer to that case or the judges reasoning
if it is favorable to them, but it's not binding precedent on any other
court (or even on that same court in its next case).  We'll never
*really* know the status until there's a fight that gets to appellate
courts, and that addresses these issues head on.  (Note that in the
bankruptcy case in question, all parties involved wanted the transfer
to occur.  There was no one going into court arguing the "you can't
transfer them this way" position.  You don't get good precedent absent
an adverserial hearing on the issue.) 

     -- Brett