[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on8.3 Specified Transfers

[John Curran]

On Feb 20, 2012, at 2:13 PM, John Curran wrote:

> To date, courts have held that parties rights and interests in address
> blocks may be an asset of an estate, not that the numbers themselves are 
> property. (This is despite several parties efforts to assert otherwise...)  
> The fact that a holder has rights to an address block does not mean that
> the community does not also have certain rights to the same address block.
> 
> In the referenced transaction, the recipient submitted a transfer request 
> to ARIN, ARIN found it acceptable, and indicated to the court that the sale 
> was acceptable.  If you want to see the actual documents that were revised 
> to reflect reality, refer to this posting and the ARIN references in the
> approved court documents:
> 
>  http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-December/023849.html

Matt - 

We also have many other cases of bankruptcy court transfer 
of number resources in accordance with ARIN NRPM 8.3; Border's 
case referenced below is good example of typical language 
found in the various sale agreements: 

<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-December/023889.html>

ARIN has neither agreed nor had to make any changes to the 
registry which not in accordance with community developed 
policy; we have occasionally received orders which suggest
otherwise (e.g. transfer a single /32 to another party, or
transfer without recipient submitting satisfactory transfer
request), but have been able to get these corrected without 
exception.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN