[arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to register"
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 13:24:16 EDT 2020
RIRs should not take in consideration if there was a financial
transaction between two organizations or not in order to proceed with
the transfer (not talking about M&A). That should be an irrelevant
detail to the RIR.
In a simplified way RIRs should restrict themselves to check:
1) Did the transfer request came from the rightful resource holder ? If
2) Does the transfer request comply with the current RIR policies ? If
yes then pay the RIR fees and register the resources to the new resource
In this sense if there was a financial transaction the current resource
holder should only request the RIR to transfer the resources when he is
sure whatever has been agreed to be paid was already done.
On 05/10/2020 12:36, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> Thanks for your thoughts, but there is no needs test in RIPE of course.
> And in fact, some entity did come to RIPE with a valid court order
> that said “Register is because I paid for it.”
> So there were no policy issues in that case.
> In ARIN, we can suppose the buyer was able to justify, but what
> happens if the buyer pays and does not get the addresses?
> If the buyer is in Canada, can a Canadian judge order ARIN to register
> the blocks to the buyer?
> And the more important question as to whether ARIN would re-register
> blocks back to a seller who doesn’t get paid?
> That would involve policy questions, I think.
> *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Fernando
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2020 10:55 AM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to
> 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
> My understanding is that ARIN should only obey orders from a court in
> the country it is registered, as other RIRs and other organizations.
> On 05/10/2020 11:38, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hello List,
> 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
> 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
> 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
> (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
> 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.
> Mike Burns
> 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 <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML