<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On 14 May 2019, at 1:55 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" class="">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">...<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">> <a href="https://www.news-journal.com/ap/national/arin-wins-important-legal-case-and-precedent-against-fraud/article_ceb57140-e574-5355-a8b3-c8f8c70a439e.html" class="">
https://www.news-journal.com/ap/national/arin-wins-important-legal-case-and-precedent-against-fraud/article_ceb57140-e574-5355-a8b3-c8f8c70a439e.html</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">This is indeed interesting and good news. One thing about the article confuses me: what precedent was set here? That ARIN can enforce a signed, written contract as normal under the law? Was that ever in doubt? </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div>Bill - </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>You ask: "Was that ever in doubt?" Not by me, but from time to time we’ve had folks raise questions about the legal enforceability of the RSA. </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>The precedent set is that the terms and conditions fo the RSA were effectively enforced by the arbitrator’s decision, including two specific basis for revocation: 1) RSA’s entered fraudulently may be considered as void (and resources revoked), and 2) in
the alternative, to the extent that we consider the RSA a valid contract, then the fraudulent conduct is a breach the RSA (also permitting revocation.) </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>