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

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Mon Oct 5 15:54:31 EDT 2020


Hi David,

 

I agree with what you’ve written below, but it begs a question for me.

 

If the judge ordered a deal reversed, with addresses returned to the seller, would ARIN do that if the seller couldn’t demonstrate need?

 

The genesis of my question is whether a seller can use the sold ip addresses as security for future payments.

It would make many deals easier when the buyer can’t afford the full amount but wants to pay over time to the seller.

The seller accepts but demands return of the addresses in the case of non-payment.

If the judge orders this return, will ARIN comply?

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2020 3:36 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>; ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to register"

 

I wouldn't say RIPE took the financial transaction or the contract between the parties into consideration, the Judge did.

 

A few comments;

 

1. It is highly likely, maybe even expected in many cases, that the two parties involved in a transfer will have a contract, either written or verbal.

 

2. Neither ARIN nor the other RIRs are going to agree to be parties to this contract.

 

3. Nor will ARIN or the other RIRs agree to be the arbitrator of this contract.

 

4. Therefore it is not ARIN or the other RIRs duty to enforce any terms of this contract unless ARIN or the other RIRs are ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

5. In other words, if terms of the contract need to be enforced it is the aggrieved parties responsible to obtain a court order from the appropriate court ordering ARIN or the other RIRs to appropriately do so.

 

6. The court decides who is right and who is wrong and what the appropriate resolution of the dispute is, not ARIN or the other RIRs, they simply follow the court's orders in most cases. Of course, ARIN or the other RIRs can appeal if they feel the issue was decided incorrectly, but that is probably a rare corner case.

 

Thanks

 

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 12:59 PM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

Hi Fernando,

 

But RIPE did exactly that, took into consideration a financial transaction and then executed a transfer against the resource holder’s permission.

RIPE did so at a judge’s order.

 

We have judges in ARIN territory, too.  

What if the judge applied local contract law and issues an order to return the block to the original seller?

If the right to register is just another alienable asset, should ARIN have policies that tend to work against the existing legal framework?

 

I think ARIN should allow for the repossession of transferred blocks whose buyers breached contracts calling for post-transfer payment, if a judge orders this to happen, without letting policy get in the way.

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> > On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2020 1:24 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to register"

 

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 yes, then.
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 holder.

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.

Fernando

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.

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML  <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2020 10:55 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to register"

 

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

 

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 <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.

_______________________________________________
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.




 

-- 

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu> 
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota   
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
=============================================== 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20201005/fba426cf/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list