[arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?

[John Curran]

> On 26 Jul 2022, at 12:42 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> ...
> We've gotten way into the weeds here so I'll bring it back to this:
> it's dubious whether or not ARIN has the authority to make and enforce
> a change to the policies that would have a materially adverse impact
> on the legacy registrations. You say yes. I say no. Until a judge says
> yes or no we're both guessing.
> 
> What *is* certain is that ARIN has not attempted to do so in the
> quarter century it has existed. Not even once. There have been
> proposals but none have proceeded to adoption or implementation. Many
> changes adversely impacting RSA registrations. None adversely
> impacting legacy registrations.

Actually, I’m not aware of changes that particularly adversely impact registrations of either type, 
but that makes perfect sense as the registry policies are not set by ARIN, but rather by the ARIN 
community – again, this ability for the community to establish these policies  is the entire reason 
for the change to a "commercially based, self-regulating entity.” (NSF’s language) 

> And because I can't resist one last dig - I observe again that ARIN
> has studiously avoided putting any judge in the position to decide
> the question.

Bill – we routinely go to court over precisely such matters, but the “problem" is that the we are 
consistently successful in these proceedings, and face opposition that inevitably settle rather 
than carrying a losing hand to a final adverse judgement. 

We’ve actually had the matter before many judges, and have never been ordered to do 
anything other than operate the registry per the number resource policy as developed by 
this community – this has been the consistent outcome throughout both civil and bankruptcy 
proceedings.  Yes, we do settle cases, but only when that basic principle is upheld.  Rather, 
it is your position (that for some reason legacy resource holders do not have meet the policies 
developed by the ARIN community) that has never been upheld in any orders granted – and 
not for lack of trying.  

Alas, those who seek such an outcome have never been successful in arguing its merits, and  
instead consistently end up settling with orders that recognize ARIN’s ability to operate the 
registry according to the community-developed policy, including the application of the policy 
to their address blocks. ARIN simply doesn’t settle absent those terms, as it is a simply a
fundamental principle of our inception. 

Mind you, this is _easily_ solved - simply take any of your bona fide objections to the policy 
developed by ARIN community; e.g., that which adds the “abuse” contact, or the policy which 
establishes annual POC validation (or any other policy language that’s already being applied 
to your legacy address blocks today) and pursue that elusive right that you assert you have:  
i.e. the right to force ARIN to maintain your legacy resources in the ARIN registry independent 
of the community-developed policy. (Note, until such time as your purported right survives the
inside of a courtroom, I’d suggest continued participation in the ARIN policy development 
process on this mailing list, as the policies that are developed and adopted by this community 
will most certainly continue to apply to your legacy resources…)  

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers