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 <bill@herrin.us> 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:00 PM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote: 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/