William- I am trying to follow your train of thought here. Are you stating that it is somehow ARIN's responsibility to force a legal case to a conclusion solely to settle the question of legacy allocation rights, a problem which predates ARIN's existence? Or am I misunderstanding you?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 3:22 PM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:00 PM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > We’ve actually had the matter before many judges, and have never been > ordered to do > > anything other than operate the registry per the number resource policy > as developed by > > this community – this has been the consistent outcome throughout both > civil and bankruptcy > > proceedings. Yes, we do settle cases, but only when that basic > principle is upheld. At no > > time has the alternative (that for some reason legacy resource holders > do not have meet > > the policies developed by the ARIN community) been upheld in any orders > granted – and > > not for lack of trying. > > Well John, the thing about settled cases and orders the court > -doesn't- make is that they create no precedent and ultimately fail to > answer the legal question for the next case. All they show is that in > cases where the registrant could prove he was the real registrant, > ARIN offered terms more attractive to the registrant than pursuing > litigation to its conclusion. > > Whatever line you'd have to cross for a registrant to go the distance > with you in court, the status quo doesn't cross it. > > > instead consistently end up settling with orders that recognize ARIN’s > > ability to operate the registry according to the community-developed > policy > > That's quite an overstatement. As far as I'm aware, with respect to > the legacy registrations the only order any court ever made was that > within the facts of that particular case, ARIN could refuse to > -record- a transfer of registration absent a contract. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > -- > For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ >