"Domains are not property. The assignee of a domain has no ownership interest"
Network Solutions made this same argument years ago. That was their shield against lawsuits when negligence
(or worse) on NetSols part would cause a domain to be erroneously transferred. When mistakes were made,
Network Solutions was notoriously unwilling to reverse the transaction to correct the error.
Then they got sued for refusing to reverse a fradulent domain transfer, and they lost. The case had the side effect of setting
the precedent that domains *are* in fact tangible property. Now when a registrar or registry makes a mistake, they can be
legally held responsible. (What case was that? Kremen v. Network Solutions)
I would say that's an improvement.
2) Why does ARIN believe that it can ignore a court order?
3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this:
Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum.
If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best
use of it.