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

[John Curran]

Mike - 
 
 In all cases, we update the ARIN registry in accordance 
 with the adopted policy.  If these happen without us 
 being involved, then we seek a motion of clarification.
 We just recently have had a judge go back and revise their 
 order to make clear that their nothing in their previous
 order effected a sale “free and clear” of any interest of 
 ARIN whatsoever, which then provides us the opportunity to
 explain how the community wants these resources managed.
  
FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Nov 23, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>