Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
ernesto at cs.fiu.edu
Thu Mar 24 22:44:23 CDT 2011
Bankruptcy courts have done this with phone numbers, read my paper - the 'phone number as assets' in bankruptcy cases are cited in there.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran at 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.
> 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....
More information about the NANOG