[arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:46 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On 16 Jun 2019, at 3:59 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>

[ clip ]


> I am not a lawyer, but can say from firsthand experience that ARIN’s
> present stance as administrator and steward of the registry makes dealing
> with many disputes rather straightforward, and if we were a party of
> significant financial interest in the outcomes, then there are various
> legal options for enforcement that would become quite challenging or
> altogether unavaialble, and thus require us to go further down the
> litigation/arbitration to obtain the appropriate outcomes for the
> community.  This is not a “highly speculative” outcome of monetization, but
> rather inevitable outcome as judges reasonable view claims/motions by
> parties with strong financial motivation as requiring a greater degree of
> exploration of facts, and such exploration requires moving past “pretrial”
> and into the fact-finding and arguing phase of a case.  With enough effort,
> we’re likely to achieve the same outcome in the end, but it is readily
> apparent to be that becoming a party with a strong financial incentive in
> this manner will raise the cost and uncertainty of our legal proceedings.
>

The deeper exploration of facts and increased detail required to avoid
litigation is attractive. If a party is going to lose something of value,
process is a priority. Rather than speculate on the outcome, the objective
may be a better place to start from. From my perspective, the objective is
for ARIN to be out of the IPv4 allocation business entirely. Backing in, it
requires process or policy around rejecting returns, revocation,
forfeitures, et. Al. and distribution of proceeds.

It isn't an insurmountable ask IMHO. However, it would take effort and
expense.


>
> If ARIN’s policies directed that we would monetize the recovered resources
> (even if then using the proceeds for the benefit of the community), I am
> confident that we would be still be in litigation over the particular fraud
> referenced above.
> Such a consequence shouldn’t prevent the community from considering any
> policy it desires, but rather serves to inform that a policy options that
> makes ARIN a highly-interested partly financially will inevitably add some
> costs and uncertainty to our legal proceedings regarding
> revocation/reclamation.
>
>
Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190617/703a95a7/attachment.htm>