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

[John Curran]

Mike -

You are correct that ARIN reviews court orders received to determine if they are legally sound and applicable, but there are many possible permutations regarding jurisdiction of orders and it is generally not possible to answer hypotheticals when it comes to these matters.

Per the RIPE NCC’s statement, RIPE NCC will comply with court orders that have entered into force and are recognised by the Dutch courts, are appropriately served, and clearly direct the RIPE NCC with regard to the resources in question.   I will observe that ARIN is directly comparable to RIPE NCC in these regards, as we do process orders that are recognized by the US courts, are appropriately served, and clearly direct us with regard to specific number resources.  (It is left as a legal exercise to the reader to determine how to have any given order recognized by the US courts given the particulars of their situation.)

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On 5 Oct 2020, at 10:38 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:

Hello List,

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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20201005/62a4c323/attachment.htm>