[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements forIPv4transfers

[Mike Burns]

John,

What would happen if a sole proprietor who had been allocated a legacy block 
in 1996 divorced his wife and a divorce court judge decided this was a 
marital asset that should be split between husband and wife?

Or, what if he went bankrupt and the bankruptcy judge decided to sell the 
block in three pieces to maximize returns to the creditors?

What if he failed to pay his child support and a judge put a lien on the 
assets?

What if he were successfully sued for sexual harassment and the addresses 
were included in a judgment?

What if he sells his business to a group of three investors, who then decide 
to split the assets and venture out on their own?

What if he pledges the assets as collateral on a loan that defaults?

Do the recipients in these cases have to justify the addresses before ARIN 
would update Whois?


Regards,

Mike







-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Owen DeLong ; Alexander, Daniel ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements 
forIPv4transfers

On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, 
> and
> global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring 
> Whois
> accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law,
> equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist
> duties as stewards of the free pool.
>
> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to 
> answer
> the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS
> justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs. 
> My
> fear is that legally, the deal would be done.

Mike -

I believe the community needs to consider this policy proposal
and decide its merits, and my comment is not intended to be in
favor or opposed in any manner, but solely to clarify one point
in your remarks in their consideration of the proposal.

ARIN is _presently_ "aligned with the legal realities of property
law"; this policy proposal is not necessary on purely on that
basis despite what some my infer from your remarks.

Specifically, ARIN views that address holders have certain rights
(such as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space
within the ARIN registry database as well as the right to transfer
the registration of the space), however we note that other parties
also have rights with respect to the same registrations (such as
the right to have visibility into the public portion of the address
registrations).  ARIN asserts that the policies adopted in the region
are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence the
intersection of these rights, and have not have any finding to the
contrary in any court of law.

In fact, we are increasingly dealing with parties who are aware of
this in advance and actively incorporate the appropriate language
in their sale/transfer documents.

The proposal could easily be worthwhile on many other merits, but
it is important to be clear regarding ARIN's legal compliance.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN