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

[Matthew Petach]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>> Hm.  The Adrex presentation at NANOG 54 seemed to indicate the
>> courts have ruled otherwise, that IPv4 addresses are indeed real
>> property that have value and can be purchased and sold to settle
>> debts in bankruptcy proceedings.
>
> 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.

John,

Thank you for the clarification (somewhat) on this.  Not being a
lawyer at heart,
I often find the more I read, the less and less clear I actually am.   ^_^;;

Can you explain how multiple parties can share rights to the same
address block?  IE, how can a seller sell rights to a block and yet
have the community *also* own rights to the same block?  Is there
an order of operations, or a set of precedence rules that establish
when the purchaser's rights are paramount, and when they are
subjugated to the rights of the community?
Or is this just a legalese way of saying "as long as you follow
the rules, you have rights to this block; but if you don't follow
the rules, the community rights supersede your rights to the
block?"

Thanks!

Matt