[arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Tue Jul 26 15:05:12 EDT 2022

In message <050367FD-7090-4F98-9C34-2904F1129E8F at arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>> Section 8.2. of the NRPM covers "Mergers, Acquisitions, and Reorganizations".  The policies
>> and procedures that are to be applied in all of those situations are quite clearly set
>> forth there.  Section 8.2. of the NRPM quite clearly *does not* cover dissolutions.
>> Please provide a straight answer to the question I did ask, which related to dissolution
>> situations.
>It appears to be a reorganization of the failing operation from an LLC to now operating under
>under a registered legal name instead. 

You are still evading the question John.

I provided a straightforward hypothetical of a small business that was validly operating
within the state of California, which was formerly (a) registered as an ARIN member, and
which (b) was the registrant/Holder of ARIN resources, and which (c) either by deliberate
choice of the owner(s) or by defaulting on its legal obligations to the State, became
dissolved as a legal entity, i.e. it ceased to exist as a legal entity.

What is the legal basis for you to claim that such an entity "appears to be a reorganization"?

(Frankly, I am glad that you've never worked as a county coroner.  If you had, we might
have ended up with a whole lot of "reorganized" individuals, feeding worms and taking up
space in various mortuaries.)

>> You are being deliberately obtuse and evading the question.  If the hypothetical TMBBATS LLC
>> goes belly up, then when will the Registration Services Helpdesk, or any other part of ARIN
>> even notice this fact and take some action (i.e. ANY action)?  After 1 year?  After 2 years?
>> After 10 years?  Ever?
>No, not unless specifically brought to the attention of ARIN.  Note that such conditions, 
>as we have discussed here, are sometimes transitory and may be cured or reinstated, 
>so absent clear direction in policy we will not monitor and/or reclaim under a lapse in 

You have just contradicted yourself within the space of two sentences John.  First you
make a rather vague and entirely non-commital comment which you apparently hope will
give us the vague impression that ARIN might actually DO SOMETHING if a dead company
which is a member and resource holder is "specifically brought to the attention of ARIN".
And then, in the very next sentence, you appear to assert that ARIN won't do damn thing
about any such cases, EVEN IF they are "specifically brought to the attention of ARIN",
because you have been given no explicit policy guidance that would apply in such a case.

So?  Which is it?  Please get down off the fence John.  It must be rather uncomfortable
for you sitting on that.

I will restate the question yet again in an effort to try to further reduce the chances
for another non-responsive answer.

If a given (now former) corporate entity was dissolved, either voluntarily or otherwise,
by the competent legal authority that oversees such matters within its incorporation
jurisdiction, and if all available evidence indicates that this is NOT merely a
"transitory" situation, but rather one that has gone on for many years, continuously,
and if this member is "specifically brought to the attention of ARIN" (your words)
then what, if anything, will ARIN do, right now, today, in such a case?

Assume for the sake of argument that whoever or whatever ARIN staff may _feel_ is the
rightful heir, assign, or successor of the now dead company is utterly unresponsive
to any and all outreach from ARIN.   What will ARIN do in such a case?

Please provide a clear answer to this question John.  Just mumbling some vague musings
about "working with the member to try to rectify/cure the situation" is not what
I'm looking for here.

Please keep in mind when answering that you/ARIN may not even know who the real legal 
successors, heirs, and assigns of the (now defunct) company even are.  So who the
bleep would ARIN be trying to "work the problem out" with anyway if you don't even
know for sure who owned the dead company at the time of its death?

I understand that it is ARIN's default position to consistantly back away from anything
that might be even the tiniest bit confrontational, but if a company has been dead for
two years or five years or ten years and if _someobody_ is still nontheless clinging
onto that dead company's ASNs and IPv4 blocks as if they were the last life preserver
on the Titanic, then at what point, if any, does the whole situation become just so
eggregious and just so laughable that ARIN might actually get up off its policy and

(Please note that as I have previously clarified in this thread, my own personal
specific interest and questions are *only* about *non-legacy* members and resources.
I do not at the moment care to get distracted, or to be led on a merry chase, off
into the weeds discussing any of the more legally questionable issues relating to
legacy stuff.  I am ONLY asking about dead companies that did sign an RSA at one time.)


P.S.  From where I am sitting, it appears that ARIN has done the exact same level of
planning for reasonably anticipatable end-of-life events among its members as the
plastics industry has done for its various creations, i.e. none.  Anyone who doubts
the need for such end-of-life planning need only look to our oceans to know that
indeed, as it is often said, "failing to plan is planning to fail".

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list