> On 25 Jul 2022, at 3:37 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Not really. Not in the hypothetical as I described it. The /24 was > originally > granted on the basis of "need" for an Internet cafe. Now it is just hosting > the > web sites of George and a couple of his friends. So maybe only 5 IPv4 > addresses > are being used out of the whole /24 block now. In short, vastly > underutilized.
Underutlization does not (in and of itself) provide a basis for revocation. >> So, while it is true that the resources are registered to an entity that no >> technically longer >> exists, they are being utilized by a party that has a credible claim to be >> the legal successor >> to the rights to the address block, > > Now we come to the crux of the matter. > > John, please point me at the specific language in the RSA that grants any sort > of right or claim to the resource(s) to any entity other than the entity to > which those reasources were originally assigned. To put it another way, what > basis in law do you have for asserting that George automatically inherits some > rights, titles, or claims to or upon -this- specific asset upon the (legal) > death > of his (former) LLC? (For the moment, we need not even delve into the various > possibilities that could clearly arise if it transpired that George's ex-wife > and/or George's brother-in-law and sister-in-law were in fact the real and > only > beneficial owners of the now defunct LLC, with George himself perhaps having > owned a grand total of 0% of the LLC at the time of its demise.) Indeed. We get such colorful circumstances (multiple parties claiming rights to resources in a failed estate), and that’s precisely what bankruptcy courts exist – however, you omitted such from your example, and I went on what you stated. > For now, let just pretend that this is a simple and obvious case where George > did indeed own 100% of the LLC at the time of the LLC's demise. Even that > simplifying assumption does not really help at all to clarify who, if anyone, > might have some claim to or rights to the /24 after the demise of the LLC. > > (Note: I myself have an immediate family relative who "owns" a house. And I > am > that relative's sole legal death beneficiary for ALL of his assets. But I > will > NOT be getting the house in question, nor even any part of it, when he > shuffles > off this mortal coil because he's got a reverse mortgage on the house, and the > way those work is that the reverse mortgage company gets the house, and the > whole house, upon his death. Because that's what the contract says.) > > So I ask again, where is the justification, either in legal principals or in > the > actual text of the RSA that says that George retains (or obtains) _any_ > interest > in the /24 upon the death of George's LLC? The way I read the plain language > of > the RSA, all claims, rights, and titles to the /24 must necessarily pass back > to > ARIN upon the death of the LLC, if for no other reason, then at least for the > obviious reason that "The Holder" no longer exists and thus can no longer pay > the > annual fees. Wonderful logic. I’ll note that telecommunications companies routinely consolidate, and that it is quite possible that invoices will paid from an account other than one that signed the ARIN agreement. (Given how some organizations are about updating their merger records, any other position would be irresponsible...) > If you seriously believe otherwise, then I for one would be enlightened if you > would explain the basis for your differing view on this key point. See above. >> ARIN's job is to administer the registry for productive use, and it would >> appear that is what >> is happening in this case. > > No. It isn't. I think that I was clear in my hypothetical, which is not at > all far fetched, that when the LLC was a real and going concern, it needed, > used, > and most importantly *justified*, to ARIN that it would be using most or all > of > an entire /24. Now, it's just George and his drinkin' buddies, and they are > using > maybe 5 out of 256 of those IP addresses. > > This is not my personal idea of efficient utilization of scarce resources. > Others > may of course disagree. Perhaps (but then again there is a transfer market, and that will result in more efficient over the long-term utilization if economically feasible.) >> I suspect that the Registration Services Helpdesk would ask that >> George register TMBBATS as a sole proprietorship, provide an appropriate >> attestation of >> the events, and update the records accordingly. > > Well, that's a part of my question: Would they? When would they? Why would > they? Yes, RSD would handle accordingly - there is no reason not to, particularly given that the address block is presently utilized and there is no other party claiming they hold the rights. It is interesting - people alternately accuse ARIN of being hard to satisfy, and then express surprise when we go above and beyond to accommodate people attempting to clean up the registration records of blocks that they requested long ago and have been using since… >> Am I to presume you're seeking some other outcome for George? (i.e. given >> that you are >> asking whether ARIN can start rejecting his RSA fee payments?) > > Yes, you may so presume. I look forward to you proposing policy to that effect. The postulated case would be an Org recovery, as per NRPM 8.2. If you wish to add more exacting criteria to that section, describe the present problem as you see it, and the suggested outcome in a policy proposal. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers _______________________________________________ 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.
