RIRs should not take in consideration if there was a financial
transaction between two organizations or not in order to proceed with
the transfer (not talking about M&A). That should be an irrelevant
detail to the RIR.
In a simplified way RIRs should restrict themselves to check:
1) Did the transfer request came from the rightful resource holder ? If
yes, then.
2) Does the transfer request comply with the current RIR policies ? If
yes then pay the RIR fees and register the resources to the new resource
holder.
In this sense if there was a financial transaction the current resource
holder should only request the RIR to transfer the resources when he is
sure whatever has been agreed to be paid was already done.
Fernando
On 05/10/2020 12:36, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Thanks for your thoughts, but there is no needs test in RIPE of course.
And in fact, some entity did come to RIPE with a valid court order
that said “Register is because I paid for it.”
So there were no policy issues in that case.
In ARIN, we can suppose the buyer was able to justify, but what
happens if the buyer pays and does not get the addresses?
If the buyer is in Canada, can a Canadian judge order ARIN to register
the blocks to the buyer?
And the more important question as to whether ARIN would re-register
blocks back to a seller who doesn’t get paid?
That would involve policy questions, I think.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2020 10:55 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to
register"
I am not sure exactly about RIPE but any court must take in
consideration that the RIR policies must apply for the "buyer" to have
the right to register it. Since in most RIRs the golden rule is (and
must keep being) be able to justify for the addresses being received
(either via a donation or a purchase).
Nobody should ever be able to come to the RIR and say: "Register it
because I paid for". The community who is the one that matters and
make the rules is interested the addresses being transferred are going
be really used for its final propose and get people connected to the
internet, therefore it has a justification and not less important to
be fair with all others.
Just having the right to register addresses because it paid for it
doesn't make sense and should be opposed as much as possible by all RIRs.
Thankfully RIPE seems to go in that direction when they say in the
statement: "/Finally, it’s worth noting that each order will be
reviewed on a case by case basis. If we believe that an order or the
third party seeking to enforce the order does not comply with RIPE
policies or RIPE NCC procedures, we reserve the right to dispute any
transfer./"
My understanding is that ARIN should only obey orders from a court in
the country it is registered, as other RIRs and other organizations.
Fernando
On 05/10/2020 11:38, Mike Burns wrote:
Hello List,
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ciaran_byrne/seizure-of-the-right-to-registration-of-ipv4-addresses
<https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ciaran_byrne/seizure-of-the-right-to-registration-of-ipv4-addresses>
RIPE has enforced a court order regarding an IPv4 transfer where a
buyer who had paid for the addresses and complied with RIPE
policies sought court protection of his right to register those
addresses.
Note that this is not an ownership right but still a right that
can be court-enforced, in Europe at least.
It has always been my understanding that ARIN would enforce a
court order that it deemed legally sound.
I like the idea that a buyer’s rights can be protected in a court
action and that ARIN would abide by any court order demanding
registration.
My question is whether ARIN would accept a valid court order from
any country in the ARIN region, in the manner in which the German
court’s order was enforced in the Netherlands, where RIPE is
registered.
(Assuming the hypothetical is a buyer with a valid contract
specifying a transfer according to ARIN policy, and that the buyer
received a valid court order from their jurisdiction requiring
registration.)
And what if the seller did not get paid after a transfer, and a
court order was issued to return the registration rights to the
seller, would ARIN be able to effect that return to the seller
given policy requiring a demonstration of need, and despite the
seller having participated in transfers within the prior year?
Can we simply assume that the legal structures within which ARIN
operates supersede any ARIN policy restrictions?
Not sure if this is better on arin-discuss list, so I will post
there as well.
In IPv4 transfers, escrow is normally used, but if simple
court-protections are a viable recourse to settle disputes, it may
be that escrow services are less a requirement for a safe transfer.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
