Bankruptcy courts have done this with phone numbers, read my paper - the 'phone number as assets' in bankruptcy cases are cited in there. Just saying Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him: Mr. Rubi is likely already aware from his legal studies that it is imprudent to argue cases in public in advance of filing. /John
So I wonder.... rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, something that is 'fictional', or dead... like an appliance warranty without the appliance, or something that consisted of third parties voluntarily doing something for the original holder, without any promise to continue.... under mistaken belief the third parties had guaranteed something that could be assigned to a successor?
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
E.g. Suppose I gave my neighbors a 100% discount on widgets for their use, just because they were neighbors, it was the community thing to do or something (legacy IP addresses with no agreement, no fees, contracts, etc).
One of them declared bankruptcy, came to the court, and listed as one of their assets "100% widget discounts", and went to sell it to some major retailer, who wants to get a massive number of widgets to resell for profit (my name not mentioned, just as ARIN's name not mentioned)... is there really anything the buyer actually obtains?
I mean, it sounds like someone threw 7.5 million into a furnace, unless they are going specified transfer.... Perhaps they come to ARIN eventually, but ARIN should enforce their policies.
Meaning if MS has an RSA in force, all their resources should be compliant with ARIN policies, and all transfer policies should be followed with regards to justified need.
I have little doubt that MS will properly construct/justify the need if they are obtaining resources. It's probably an easier/cheaper task for them to justify legitimately under RIR policies than trying to find some method of fighting with the community and risking an outcome that could be unfavorable and sully their own reputation in ways that might be hard to predict.
Who knows, they have plenty of resources already and might plan a renumber and return; I would not assume the worst....
-- -JH