[arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
tedm at ipinc.net
Fri Sep 21 02:03:15 EDT 2012
On 9/20/2012 9:41 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote:
> 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>
>>>> 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
>>> 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.)
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>> 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
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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.
I will address this hypothetical situation (since Jeffrey has not
provided the actual details)
ARIN is not taking on a liability by offering an opinion on this
situation. In fact, if it did come to a court trial, a judge could
compel ARIN to render an opinion.
ARIN telling Jeffrey to go to a judge isn't letting them off the
hook, here, not by a long shot. They are still going to get sucked into
it if it goes to a judge.
As for the dispute in question, I have had long experience with
contracts and written many - and I have discovered that businesspeople
typically take one of 2 approaches to contracts. The first approach is
to spell out everything - that's my approach - resulting in contracts
that are extremely long with many, many pages.
The second approach is to make contracts short and claim that any
ambiguous things are left open to interpretation, because this
supposedly reduces loopholes. The assumption here is that the
interpretation is always going to be favorable.
My experience is the second approach always leads to problems. Yes
at times I've been sucked into it, and I've always fought it going in,
but almost always, as I have predicted in the beginning, those deals
have turned out in the long run to be the least profitable.
Yes I understand that a 30 page contract takes hours to read, hours
to think about and understand it's implications. Yes I understand that
it's sometimes not possible to "sell" something when you hit the buyer
with a long contract to sign. Yes, I understand that big contracts are
"hard" to work with.
But, you don't see these land in courts very often and when they do,
they are usually settled very rapidly.
So you can have it either way. Either you do your deals with a word,
a handshake, and a short contract and then later on you spend tens of
thousands in lawyer fees, or you spend tens of thousands up front when
you do your deals and write a contract that covers all contingencies,
and then later on when people start "forgetting" their obligations, you
can beat their heads with the contract they signed, rather cheaply.
But you can't escape the fees, or the time, no matter what. I have
learned many things about doing deals but the most important thing I've
ever learned is that unless whoever your doing the deal with is willing
to put down your deal in writing, all you have is a whole lot of nothing.
PS if Jeffrey is smart about this he will go to small claims court.
Here is a handy chart on small claims limits:
Jeffrey does not need to hire a lawyer for small claims, and the filing
fee is small. Most lawyers will not take small claims cases since
there is no money in it, and most businesspeople hate the time-suck that
preparing for and showing up for a small claims filing takes. Once
Jeffrey's opponent realizes that they can't hire a lawyer to fight a
small claims issue unless they fork over ten grand or so, and once they
realize that Jeffrey is going to force them to spend hours down at the
courthouse, my guess is they will settle quickly.
If Jeffrey has the time to post here he has time to mount a successful
small claims case.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML