Summary

  • A federal judge denied emergency relief because nine applicants had not shown likely success and had resisted information requests the judge regarded as reasonable; she did not finally adjudicate ARIN’s fraud allegations.
  • The arbitrator later invalidated the applicants’ Registration Services Agreements on an unopposed motion, incorporated a private settlement and awarded ARIN $350,000, but the settlement said to be Exhibit 1 is missing from the public seven-page file.
  • Golestan and Micfo later pleaded guilty to twenty wire-fraud counts, and those judgments were affirmed. Those later convictions establish the core fictitious-company scheme without converting every 2018 allegation into a court finding or convicting the nine arbitral claimants.

The first ruling was about time, not final truth

On 21 December 2018, counsel for Oppobox and eight other companies joined a federal hearing by telephone and asked Judge Leonie Brinkema for a temporary restraining order. ARIN had threatened action against registration services covering large blocks of IPv4 addresses. The applicants wanted the existing position held while the contractual dispute moved to arbitration.

The request failed. Brinkema said the applicants had not demonstrated a likelihood of success. The exhibits she had managed to review showed, in her words, recalcitrance in supplying information ARIN reasonably requested. She also thought the ultimate issues belonged in arbitration.

That is a consequential ruling, but a narrow one. The judge had received the case that morning and said she had about forty-five minutes to get up to speed. She did not conduct a trial. She did not declare every company fictitious, fix the number or value of addresses, or decide that every statement made by ARIN’s lawyers was true. She decided that extraordinary emergency relief had not been earned on the record before her.

The distinction matters because ARIN’s counsel made grave accusations at the hearing. He described aliases, false documents, overseas transfers and a portfolio worth between $10 million and $20 million. Claimants’ counsel denied deception and accused ARIN of using monopoly power to threaten an across-the-board cutoff. Those were opposing submissions. The denial of the restraining order did not turn either advocate’s complete account into an adjudicated fact.

Customer continuity became an information contest

The sharpest part of the hearing was not the valuation. It was the customer list.

ARIN’s counsel said the registry did not want to harm real customers who might rely on the applicants’ services. He offered not to revoke anything until ARIN received customer details and deposed Amir Golestan, if the court ordered those steps. The information could be handled under a nondisclosure agreement. Claimants’ counsel objected and declined the proposed route.

Brinkema did not order production or a deposition. Instead, she held that the refusal undercut the applicants’ claim of irreparable customer harm. They had been offered a way, in her view, to preserve service for legitimate customers while ARIN tested whether those customers existed.

That exchange reveals the operating surface. ARIN controlled recognized registration records. The applicants controlled the evidence about users allegedly dependent on those records. The court controlled only the requested equitable restraint. None held every kind of authority, but the registry’s operational control could move faster than a final merits judgment.

Policy structured the gate; contract structured the appeal

ARIN’s 2018 policy manual made the registry responsible for judging whether a requested amount was valid. When the free pool could not meet a qualified request, the waiting list was first-approved, subject to block size and revalidation. An organization ordinarily could receive only one allocation, assignment or transfer in three months, absent an ARIN waiver. The same manual pointed unmet applicants toward the transfer market and required recipients to satisfy specified-recipient rules and sign an RSA where required.

These were the rules of ARIN’s administrative system. They were not statutes. They did, however, determine who could receive recognized records and on what evidence. The RSA then channelled the ultimate dispute to arbitration, apart from the effort to obtain injunctive relief.

That combination produced lock-in. An operator could contest ARIN, but a network and its customers could depend on the registry record before the contest ended. By the time a dispute reached court, continuity pressure was already concentrated in the party asking the court to preserve the status quo.

The contested case became an unopposed case

The nine companies filed their AAA demand on 20 December 2018. ARIN answered with counterclaims on 16 January 2019. The counterclaims were docketed on 28 January; the claimants responded on 19 February; discovery followed.

Then the posture changed. On 1 May, ARIN, the claimants and Micfo—formally a nonparty to the arbitration—executed a settlement. ARIN submitted an unopposed dispositive motion. On 6 May, arbitrator Arthur House granted it.

House found that the RSAs were invalid. He also made an alternative finding: even if valid, they had been materially breached. He entered an award against the claimants on every claim and for ARIN on its counterclaims.

The decision was binding within the agreed process. It was also unopposed. The order says the arbitrator relied on the submissions before him, including the settlement, and found that the unopposed information warranted relief under the AAA’s dispositive-motion rule. There was no contested evidentiary hearing in which a defence tested the complete case. That procedural fact does not erase the result; it defines what kind of result it was.

Exhibit 1 is where public audit stops

The interim award says the 1 May settlement did not admit liability or wrongdoing. It then incorporated every undertaking and obligation in that settlement as if written into the award. It allowed the agreement to be enforced either in the arbitration or in a competent court. House kept the arbitral record open and retained jurisdiction until the obligations were complete.

The award says a copy of the settlement is attached as Exhibit 1.

The official ARIN file now available to the public has seven pages: five pages of interim award and two pages granting the dispositive motion. It has no Exhibit 1. Targeted searches located no separate settlement and no final award closing the retained jurisdiction.

The omission creates a hard evidentiary boundary. The public can verify that obligations were incorporated, that enforcement remained available and that completion was still pending on 6 May. It cannot verify the exact prefix schedule, revocation sequence, customer protections, deadlines or complete consideration.

The visible cost allocation was precise

What the public award does disclose is money.

ARIN received $350,000 for legal fees. Payment by Micfo under Section 8 of the missing settlement would satisfy the claimants’ obligation. AAA filing and administrative fees totalled $8,175. Arbitrator fees totalled $11,985 as of 6 May. The claimants, jointly and severally, and ARIN each bore half. ARIN also had to reimburse the claimants $587.50 for part of an administrative-fee overpayment.

The allocation is more informative than a slogan about stewardship. It shows who paid for enforcement and who still bore part of the forum’s cost. It does not reveal the full price of settlement, the ultimate destination of each block, or the continuity cost imposed on genuine customers, if any.

Later convictions established the scheme, not a larger 2018 judgment

Eight days after the interim award, a federal indictment charged Golestan and Micfo with twenty counts of wire fraud. An indictment was an accusation. The evidentiary position changed in November 2021, when Golestan, personally and for Micfo, pleaded guilty to all twenty counts after the trial had begun.

The Fourth Circuit later affirmed both judgments. Its published opinion records fictitious Channel Partners and officers, fraudulent submissions to ARIN, address sales and approximately $3.3 million in profit. It records a sixty-month prison sentence, about $77,000 in restitution, forfeiture of rights to enumerated addresses and forfeiture of $3.3 million.

The opinion describes approximately 1.3 million IPv4 addresses obtained through the overall scheme. Elsewhere, discussing the indictment, it refers to about 757,760. ARIN’s earlier public account used roughly 735,000. Those numbers arise from different record formulations. Treating them as interchangeable would manufacture precision.

The pleas also have a defined reach. Golestan and Micfo were the defendants. The nine companies named in the arbitration did not enter those criminal pleas. The later record confirms the central fraud machinery; it does not licence a retroactive claim that the 2018 judge adjudicated every allegation at a short emergency hearing.

What was actually authorised

ARIN held contractual and operational authority over its registry services. The federal court held public authority to grant or deny emergency relief. The arbitrator held authority supplied by the parties’ arbitration agreement. The later criminal court held sovereign authority to punish fraud and order forfeiture.

No one of those sources absorbed the others.

The case authorised ARIN to prevail on the contractual claims and to enforce obligations incorporated from a settlement. It did not create a general judicial charter for ARIN to decide title, criminal liability and customer interests in every IPv4 dispute. The strongest public-law judgment came later, against Golestan and Micfo, under the wire-fraud statute.

A credible alternative would have separated the questions earlier. Applicant identity and signatory authority could have been authenticated independently. Customer need could have been sampled under privacy protection. Suspect allocations could have been frozen before operational dependence deepened. A published continuity protocol could have defined how real customers were protected during revocation. The registry could then issue a narrow, machine-readable receipt stating what it had verified—and what it had not.

BTW’s existing IPv4 due-diligence analysis makes the same separation from the buyer’s side: registry recognition is not signatory authority, routing use, clean reputation or freedom from legal restraint. In this case, the separation is also the measure of institutional legitimacy. ARIN’s record control was real. Its contract claims succeeded. The fraud was later proved by guilty pleas. The missing settlement still prevents the public from knowing exactly how negotiated power became registry action.

The conclusion would change if a complete authenticated settlement, final award or dispositive record supplied the missing terms. Until then, the honest precedent is narrower than either side’s rhetoric: emergency protection was denied, contractual claims were resolved without opposition, criminal guilt was established later, and the document that connected settlement to revocation remains outside public view.

Sources