[arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to register"

[Fernando Frediani]

I am not sure exactly about RIPE but any court must take in 
consideration that the RIR policies must apply for the "buyer" to have 
the right to register it. Since in most RIRs the golden rule is (and 
must keep being) be able to justify for the addresses being received 
(either via a donation or a purchase).

Nobody should ever be able to come to the RIR and say: "Register it 
because I paid for". The community who is the one that matters and make 
the rules is interested the addresses being transferred are going be 
really used for its final propose and get people connected to the 
internet, therefore it has a justification and not less important to be 
fair with all others.
Just having the right to register addresses because it paid for it 
doesn't make sense and should be opposed as much as possible by all RIRs.

Thankfully RIPE seems to go in that direction when they say in the 
statement: "/Finally, it’s worth noting that each order will be reviewed 
on a case by case basis. If we believe that an order or the third party 
seeking to enforce the order does not comply with RIPE policies or RIPE 
NCC procedures, we reserve the right to dispute any transfer./"

My understanding is that ARIN should only obey orders from a court in 
the country it is registered, as other RIRs and other organizations.

Fernando

On 05/10/2020 11:38, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hello List,
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ciaran_byrne/seizure-of-the-right-to-registration-of-ipv4-addresses 
> <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ciaran_byrne/seizure-of-the-right-to-registration-of-ipv4-addresses>
>
> RIPE has enforced a court order regarding an IPv4 transfer where a 
> buyer who had paid for the addresses and complied with RIPE policies 
> sought court protection of his right to register those addresses.
>
> Note that this is not an ownership right but still a right that can be 
> court-enforced, in Europe at least.
>
> It has always been my understanding that ARIN would enforce a court 
> order that it deemed legally sound.
>
> I like the idea that a buyer’s rights can be protected in a court 
> action and that ARIN would abide by any court order demanding 
> registration.
>
> My question is whether ARIN would accept a valid court order from any 
> country in the ARIN region, in the manner in which the German court’s 
> order was enforced in the Netherlands, where RIPE is registered.
>
> (Assuming the hypothetical is a buyer with a valid contract specifying 
> a transfer according to ARIN policy, and that the buyer received a 
> valid court order from their jurisdiction requiring registration.)
>
> And what if the seller did not get paid after a transfer, and a court 
> order was issued to return the registration rights to the seller, 
> would ARIN be able to effect that return to the seller given policy 
> requiring a demonstration of need, and despite the seller having 
> participated in transfers within the prior year?
>
> Can we simply assume that the legal structures within which ARIN 
> operates supersede any ARIN policy restrictions?
>
> Not sure if this is better on arin-discuss list, so I will post there 
> as well.
>
> In IPv4 transfers, escrow is normally used, but if simple 
> court-protections are a viable recourse to settle disputes, it may be 
> that escrow services are less a requirement for a safe transfer.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
> IPTrading.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20201005/e48665fb/attachment.htm>