Owen, I (and I presume Eric Goldman, author of the post I referenced) was looking at Judge James Ware's actual ruling (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2006cv02554/181054/41/). I don't see anything in there discussing that 'the transfer had to be done in a manner that complied with ARIN policy' or Kremen was 'required to sign the RSA'. It isn't a very long document (and surprisingly easy to read for a court judgement). Not being a lawyer, I can't be certain, but all I see is "time-barred" and "statute of limitations". The only thing relevant I can see in subsequent filings is that Kremen and ARIN came to a settlement in which ARIN didn't have to do anything and Kremen wouldn't pursue the matter. Can you point to where the Judge said anything (much less definitively) about complying with ARIN policy, signing an RSA, etc.?
Regards, -drc On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The judge definitely ruled that the transfer had to be done in a manner that > complied with ARIN policy and made it clear that the recipient was, indeed, > required to sign the RSA. > > So, yes, Kremen also lost on the address policy basis, which I believe may > have been an additional ruling subsequent to what is covered at the cited URL. > > Owen > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:24 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > >> On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>> Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v. >>> ARIN. Kremen lost. >> >> Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy: >> >> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/01/kremen_loses_ch_1.htm >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >
