[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources

[Mike Burns]

>>> I mean the address blocks for which they have a chain-of-custody from 
>>> themselves back to the original allocant, for which they have the 
>>> exclusive right to use, to not-use, and to transfer. By transfer I mean 
>>> sell for value, I do not mean ARIN changing a record in the Whois 
>>> database. I am not saying they have the right to registration in the 
>>> ARIN database.

>This involves a series of assertions which are arguably false...

>Namely:

>1. That the original registrant had some right to transfer the blocks to 
>them.

Nortel was found to have exclusive right to transfer addresses allocated to 
another company, say Bay Networks, which was acquired by Nortel.
So presumably Bay Networks, the original registrant, had some right to 
transfer blocks to Nortel without ARIN's involvement. From the judge's 
order:
‘‘The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet
Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive
right to use the Internet Numbers."

>2. That they have the exclusive right to use.

Again from the judge :‘‘The Seller has the exclusive right to use the 
Internet
Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive
right to use the Internet Numbers."

>3. That they have a right to not use and yet retain control of the 
>addresses.

Addresses are being sold out of bankruptcy, I think it likely that many of 
them are not being used.


>Certainly they have the exclusive right to use or not use the addresses 
>within their network, but, the question is whether or not that creates an 
>obligation for ARIN to maintain an entry associating those addresses with 
>them (or their predecessor) in the ARIN database and/or for ARIN to update 
>that registration. Does it create an obligation for ARIN to avoid creating 
>a conflicting registration in the ARIN database?

No legal obligation, just our obligation as good stewards, IMO.

>If they do not have a right to registration in the ARIN database, how would 
>they have a right to preclude a conflicting registration in the ARIN 
>database? Indeed, absent a contract with ARIN, how can they exert any 
>control whatsoever on the contents of the ARIN database?

Owen, they cannot exert any control over the ARIN database, IMO.

>Moving beyond the question of how they interact with ARIN, however, how 
>does that "exclusive right to use or not use" the addresses extend to 
>affect other network operators with whom they also do not have a contract? 
>In short, where did these "exclusive rights" come from and under what law 
>or contract are they governed?

For now, they seem to be governed by the judge's order and language in 
Nortel/Microsoft.

>ARIN is the successor registry to those contracts and ARIN policies do 
>apply to all such registrations. No rights were conveyed with the original 
>allocations, but, rather a registration for uniqueness among cooperating 
>parties was conveyed. If you have documentation or supporting law or 
>contract to assert or prove otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing 
>that.

If ARIN policies apply to legacy registrations, why did ARIN's CEO claim 
otherwise, as quoted in 
http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf 
?
And where is  your documentation or supporting law to assert that ARIN's 
post-hoc policies apply to legacy addresses?
As far a my documentation or case law, I say read again 
http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf
This is the considered conclusion of two lawyers who have studied this 
issue:
Bankruptcy trustees and debtors’ counsel (and for
that matter, creditors’ counsel) should be wary of advice
which encourages them to ‘‘avoid references to the
estate’s ‘ownership’ of the IP Numbers. . .’’ – an assertion
incompatible both with case law and the real world
experience of major industry players. Private and public
actors alike agree that IPv4 numbers have enormous
present value. The recent case of In re Nortel only further
cements that point, and provides helpful insight to
the market mechanisms and pricing of IPv4 Numbers.
The age of property rights in IPv4 numbers has undoubtedly
arrived.


>So long as there is no conflict, I believe you can get certain ISPs to 
>route just about anything.

You are right about that, and right about the observation that this won't 
really boil until ARIN takes the plunge of reissuing numbers to some poor 
sap.

Mike