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 <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran <jcur...@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