[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirementsforIPv4transfers

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Wed Nov 23 13:16:19 EST 2011


The current policy states that justification would be required of the 
recipient in all cases I proferred, in order for ARIN to update Whois.
Is that accurate? Assume all these decisions are happening today.

Was the judge in your response dealing with legacy space under no RSA with 



-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:49 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs 

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.


John Curran
President and CEO

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list