[arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
mike at iptrading.com
Wed Jun 3 16:05:02 EDT 2015
The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen without ARIN approval.
But you didn't, instead you had negotiated language added to the sales order which was legally passive and basically dealt with buyer recitals.
Why would Nortel object? They got their money.
Why would Microsoft object? They got their addresses.
But why would ARIN twist itself in knots instead of staking their legal claim at that point?
Still no word on the queer justification coincidence? Remember that the addresses were still in use by Nortel at the time of sale and 198,000 of them wouldn't be available until various times in the future, not to go past January 31st, 2012?
How can you stand by that justification, especially since Microsoft didn't even advertise the majority of the purchased addresses for a year afterwards?
This is what we mean by evidence that ARIN does not truly seek a legal precedent be set on this matter.
And this begs the question of your assertion that ARIN "provides" the rights to the address blocks in your conversation with David Conrad.
If that were the case, why does ARIN kowtow to legal requirements (a la the L/RSA for Microsoft and other changes you make to comport with bankruptcy requirements) instead of telling the judge to stuff it because ARIN policy defines address holder rights and registry will only be changed by policy?
It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN registry system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court.
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after
> consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for
> the auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the
> exclusive right to transfer the addresses. Otherwise he couldn't
> really sell them in bankruptcy court.
ARIN wouldn’t argue that Nortel as "the party with the exclusive right to sell the addresses"; in fact, that right is specifically provided for all address holders
in the L/RSA agreements. The filing in the matter for the auction did not inform
the judge of the nature of the registry system, nor did it seek an order to sell the
addresses, only permission to hold an auction. It was only when they filed to
actually complete the sale that ARIN was notified.
> There was nothing about ARIN in that motion, the only language
> involving ARIN came after you were finally notified of the auction and
> had 30 days to negotiate with Microsoft.
On this we agree - ARIN was not notified in advance, or the original auction order would have been much clearer. We have dealt with many bankruptcy matters since that time and are seeing appropriate language now being used.
Upon engaging with Microsoft and Nortel, their revised order and amended sale agreement were similarly corrected.
To the original point, we have continuously filed to insure that bankruptcy sales are handled in compliance with policy, and that means not allowing transfers contrary to policy - we achieved that outcome in Microsoft/Nortel.
I will also note that in Nortel's original filing, Nortel made a claim of a "property interest” (not just rights of use) as well as a claim that legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN's transfer restrictions. Both of these were claims were removed from the revised filings by Nortel; feel free to ask them if you wish to why they chose not to attempt pursuing these claims.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML