. > Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each > case could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question.
That is also incorrect. Thanks! /John Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to defunct entities being sold in a bankruptcy court with no mention of ARIN. In a court where the judge found that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer the addresses before bidding began. And I remember ARIN engaging in secret negotiations with Microsoft in the 30 days it had before the judge finalized his order, and allowing it to sign a modified Legacy Services Agreement when policy required an RSA. And I remember ARIN scurrying in that 30 days to find that Microsoft apparently had a justified need for precisely the number of ip addresses allocated to a motley crew of companies acquired by Nortel in the 1990s. And language about requirements designed with aggregation in mind, which required a single block transfer, were ignored. Instead of letting the judge finalize his order as it was written. To me that is evidence of what Bill is saying. Regards, Mike _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
