Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?
davids at webmaster.com
Fri Sep 8 19:18:59 UTC 2006
> Joe McGuckin typed:
> >> 2) Why does ARIN believe that it can ignore a court order?
> Maybe because ARIN wasn't a party to the original proceedings
> that generated that order?
> Let's say you're eating lunch one day, minding your own business,
> and a sheriff comes up with an official looking document and
> says "You need to hand your car over to Fred..." because,
> unknown to you, Fred and Barney just finished court proceedings
> where the judge ruled that Barney had to give Fred "his" car,
> even though that car was owned by you and just loaned to Barney.
> Not a great analogy, because of the whole pink slip thing,
> but you get the point.
You comply with the court order to the extent that it will not do
irreversible damage to you, and you contest the order in court. To the
extent that the court order will do irreversible damage, you stall
compliance until you can get a court to suspend the order until you have
time to fully contest it. What you don't do is flat out refuse to comply
with the court order with the beneficiary of the court order and make them
go to court to enforce it.
If you assume that all Kremen's accusations are true (and correct the
obvious errors) his case seems very strong. ARIN should not have refused to
comply with a court order or insisted on conditioning its reply.
Even if you assume that allocations made by ARIN are not property, it's
hard to argue that pre-ARIN allocations are not. They're not subject to
revocation and their grant wasn't conditioned on compliance with policies.
More information about the NANOG