[arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
jcurran at arin.net
Mon Jul 25 13:09:16 EDT 2022
I am unsure of ARIN’s legal ability to not accept payment from George, but I am not
certain it is relevant in this case, as:
- George was associated with the original request for the address block for TMBBATS
- The ARIN payments have been made
- TMBBATS has wound down (as opposed to be sold to some other party or creditor)
- The address block in question has been utilized throughout
So, while it is true that the resources are registered to an entity that no technically longer
exists, they are being utilized by a party that has a credible claim to be the legal successor
to the rights to the address block, and there is no other party that might be harmed by
recognition of same.
ARIN’s job is to administer the registry for productive use, and it would appear that is what
is happening in this case. I suspect that the Registration Services Helpdesk would ask that
George register TMBBATS as a sole proprietorship, provide an appropriate attestation of
the events, and update the records accordingly.
Am I to presume you’re seeking some other outcome for George? (i.e. given that you are
asking whether ARIN can start rejecting his RSA fee payments…)
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
> On 25 Jul 2022, at 12:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> In message <D3EDBB67-B9C3-486E-8CCF-A4586A2D78D3 at semihuman.com>,
> Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com> wrote:
>> I'd expect that in the case of an assignee subject to the
>> RSA/LRSA, this would be a self-correcting issue - if the assignee or its
>> successor does not pay their registration fee...
> I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood the thrust of my question, most
> probably because I have failed to make it clear. Please allow me to
> try again by way of a hypothetical. (DISCLAIMER: Any resemblance to any
> person or legal entity, living or dead, within the following text is purely
> Imagine the following scenaro:
> George Smiley is an avid fisherman residing in Lakeport, California. In
> 2001 George decides to turn his avocation into a professional endeavor.
> So George incorprates his new business, obtains a business bank account,
> and opens his new fishing supplies shop in Lakeport under the rubric of
> "The Master Baiter Bait & Tackle Shop, LLC". He is told by a friend
> shortly thereafter that the best way to get his shop noticed by a lot of
> fishermen is to set up his own web site, and that he could even make some
> additional money on the side by setting aside one corner of his volumous
> store and converting it into an Internet cafe for the locals of Lakeport.
> So of course, George goes to ARIN and gets a membership for his business
> (hereinafter "TMBBATS, LLC") and he also obtains from ARIN a /24 block.
> Hypothetically, let's just say that this all happens around, say, 2003,
> give or take.
> In late 2008 the Great Recession hits and George's business drops off
> dramatically. He is forced to close the Bait & Tackle shop and its
> associated Internet Cafe. He does so, and also closes the company's
> bank account. (Because why wouldn't he?) He is a lazy bugger however,
> so rather than doing the correct, proper, and decent thing and sending
> a notice to the State of California that he is closing his business, he
> simply stops filing the annual reports that all active California
> corporations are obliged, under law, to file every year.
> After a year or two, the State of California notices this and thus strikes
> George's business from the rolls of active California corporations.
> But there is still that matter of TMBBATS, LLC's ARIN membership and its
> associated ARIN-issued /24.
> Because George had put his home address in as the "official" mailing address
> of TMBBATS, LLC, even after George has effectively dissolved his company
> he continues to receive (by snail mail or email) annual invoices from ARIN,
> Inc. He and a few of his his friends are still using the /24 to host a
> handful of their personal web sites, so George responds to these annual
> ARIN invoices by sending ARIN an appropriately sized check *from his own
> personal bank account* every year, like clockwork.
> My question was/is: Is there anything within either the RSAs or within the
> NRPM which either (a) obliges or alternatively (b) prohibits ARIN from
> accepting an annual fee payment from a legal entity that is *different
> from* the legal entity which was the original recipient of the relvant
> ARIN membership (i.e. the one that entered into the RSA�contract with ARIN)?
> I am looking at the first sentence in Section 4 of the current edition of
> the ARIN RSA and I see that it contains the following language, which is
> arguably definitive:
> "... Holder shall pay..."
> Perhaps I am just missing it, but I am not seeing where, within the current
> edition of the RSA, there is any obligation created on the part of ARIN to
> accept payment for annual fees due from any party other than "Holder".
> I supposed that ARIN _could_ do so, if it desired to do so. And based on
> facts know to me I gather that ARIN _does_ in fact accept payments from
> parties other than the "holder" (of a membership and/or resources). I am
> just not seeing where, within the RSA, ARIN is contractually obligated to
> do so.
> But as I say, perhaps I am just missing it.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML