On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:44 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: >> You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that >> Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that >> case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you negotiated >> with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which >> provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an in-policy >> transfer. > > Exactly.
That’s not for ARIN to do - it would have been for Nortel to continue to hold to their original claims of "property interest” and that legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN’s transfer restrictions. Given that they had significant additional address holdings that were to become part of bankruptcy proceedings to follow, there was every incentive for them to pursue such claims, if indeed they felt their arguments had sufficient merit. (I do not believe that they were subscribed to PPML, perhaps the additional legal insights would have made the difference?) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
