[apnic-talk] Policies for address space management in the Asia Pacific r
RE: http://www.apnic.net/policydraft.html
I would like to direct my comments specifically to the subject of
transfer of address space in the context of liquidations, mergers and
acquisitions and specifically, in the context of "unauthorised transfer".
7.19. Transfer of address space
APNIC policy does not recognise the sale or unauthorised transfer of
address space and will consider all such transfers to be invalid. APNIC
will require IRs holding such transfers to return them to the
appropriate IR.
7.20. Mergers, acquisitions and takeovers of LIRs
7.20.1. Updating registration details
The new entity must register any changes to its network usage and
contact personnel. If the effect of a takeover, sale, or merger is that
the LIR changes name, then the LIR must provide to APNIC relevant legal
documentation supporting the name change.
In the Proposed policy document, it appears to me that no firm rules
exist for :
a) determination of dispute of ownership.
b) the protection of existing customers of the merged or acquired LIR.
c) the automatic transfer of admin and tech contacts in the case of a
forced liquidation, or unfriendly merger or acquisition.
For example, in a case that is currently before the Supreme Court, an
individual trading as company A granted the right to use an IP number to
another company (Company B) and in fact sold all of the assets of
company A to that other company (company B). He then ceased to trade
company A and concentrated all his efforts on the trading of company B
(which he also owned).
This was confirmed by Company A by the individual registering company B
as the interest in the comments section of the assigned address.
Company B was then (after 24 months) liquidated by court order.
Company C purchased the physical assets from company B and then entered
an additional agreement with the liquidator of Company B for the
remainder of the assets, inclusive of customers, debtors etc.
The individual from Company A was still the admin and tech contact on
all domain names, address space and customer allocations of both names
and addresses.
None of the registries contacted by company C would alter the admin and
tech contact details. Regardless of the clear cut nature of the
liquidation.
Company A clearly had not utilised the allocated address space whilst
company B was utilising it. In fact Company A did not attempt to utilise
the diputed address space for another nine months after Company C took
over the assets of Company B.
Companies D, E & F were advertising the address space at the request of
Company C.
Registry A allowed the admin of Company A to alter in three seperate
instances the details of the address space.
Registry A had already informed company C that it was unable to intercede
without legal opinion.
Company E & F continued to advertise the address space after encounters
between various legal people. Company D sometimes advertised the address
space and sometimes didnt.
Company A then advised all that it would commence advertising disputed
address space within two weeks.
Company D allowed Company A to alter the BGP advertisements of Company C.
Company D then disavowed all knowledge and advised that they could not
provide audit trails and pointed at Registry A's response to Company C's
plaintiff cries of "foul".
Company C was forced at this stage to take suit against Company A and D.
The cost of said suite is far in excess of the normal value of a single
"C" class. The cause of action was required due to the disputed address
space being the DNS numbers utilised by several thousand dial-up users.
Now as the case is currently in session, additional discussion is not
possible.
Geoff Hustomn commented that 7.19 and 7.20 appeared to be odds with each
other, specifically in reference to legal complications.
7.21 appears to clear up the above, however, from personal experience, I
can say that it doesnt.
I believe that commercial rules apply. Address space is very much an
asset of the business. Address space that has been utilised by an ISP for
some time should be allocated to the ISP especisally when the the
original Registration was on behalf of the company.
The new policy appears to be rationalising allocation of IP address space
to LIR's for redistribution to IR's.
It then however also calls for unused or disputed address space to be
handed back.
I personally like the concept of an unused resource being surrendered
back to the community.
I do not commercially like the concept of being forced to rejustify
address mapping within an organisation that has been operational for
several years, nor do I like the concept of automatically handing back
disputed address space.
Hopefully, the courts will indicate a clear direction for the commercial
handling of IP address dispute resolution. It is unfortunate that this
issue has not been addressed in more detail.
vis: If a G.P.O. Box is registered by a junior employee of a company, and
he/she signs the Post Office identity card with his/her signature, does
the ownership of the PO Box rest in his/her name or the company ?
If the company then sells it's assets to another company in a forced
liquidation sale, should he/she then have the right to alter the company
details on the signature card to another entity.
I think not.
This problem unfortunately does not merely reside with address space. It
relates to Domain names and intelectual property.
With Domain Names, ownership is a given and the problem is not quite so
severe. However, Registries have informed me that they will not alter
Tech or Admin details without a Court Order.
I would like to see this problem accurately addressed in this Policy
Document to prevent future ambiguity.
Possibly a couple of additional fields can be added:
Acquisition: Liquidation/Purchase/Merger
With/Without Admin Co-operation:
Name of Liquidator:
Name of Solicitor:
This should then be sufficient to allow the change to be effected. The
distressed party (ex-admin) could then challenge in court if necessary.
A methodology without granting comercial title would be to allocate the
exclusive 'right to use' to the IR that had been utilising the address
space for a period of say eighteen months if no lease arrangement existed
between the LIR and IR. In this manner, LIR's would also become more
commercial about the conservation (read subnetting) of existing address
space.
--------------------------------------------------
Thomas P. Koltai
Phone: +61-2-9261-4884 Mobile: +61-419-333331
Facimile: +61-2-9267-0230 Email: tomk at koltai dot com
222 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW Australia 2000
--------------------------------------------------
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *