[arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)

[Christoph Blecker]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
>>> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
>>> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
>>> court.
>>
>> Jeffrey -
>>
>>   There could easily be organizations holding resources that have today
>>   no network and no customers; that does not provide one with the ability
>>   to transfer their number resources without their consent (nor is it a
>>   germane question for a court of law.)
>>
>>   Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is
>>   germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute
>>   (and is not ARIN's job.)
>>
>> FYI,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>
> John,
>
> This is the nature of my complaint. It needs to be ARIN's job. We
> should not pawn our responsibilities off onto the courts.
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> President, Black Lotus Communications
> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Jeffrey,

Why would it be ARIN's job? From what I understand of the situation,
you purchased a portion of a organization as part of a bankruptcy.
Your understanding of the contract says you take over the rights to
the number resources (and are obviously routing/using them at the
moment). The other side disagrees with this, and is not agreeing to
the transfer. Sounds like a cut and dry contract dispute that it's up
to the courts to solve.

If there was a dispute over any other clause of the contract, the
courts would settle it -- why is this different? While ARIN *could*
make up it's own mind about what the contract says, why would ARIN
(and it's membership) want to take on such a liability, when there is
already a civil process to deal with it?

Please let me know if I'm missing or misinterpreting the details of
this particular example.

Cheers,
Christoph