[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[John Day]

As people have tried to explain.  There is no room for debate or any 
legal input on this.  IP addresses must be assigned to facilitate 
routing.  If they are not, there is no Internet.

Yes, there are poor misguided souls who do not understand how 
networks including the Internet work who misconstrue the nature of 
addresses and think they can apply concepts from the law.  They are 
simply foolish.  Some of these misguided souls can be very loud and 
confuse the issues in some very public forums.  This doesn't change 
anything.

These forays are in the same category as a state legislature passing 
a law to make pi equal 22/7.  No matter how irrationally they behave, 
pi will remain irrational.

Perhaps, you should expend your efforts explaining to the legal 
profession why these concepts do not apply to addresses.  That could 
be quite helpful.

Take care,
John

At 19:53 -0400 2010/10/14, Ernie Rubi wrote:
>I'm not sure I read that decision as broadly as you do; in fact, 
>judicial districts are separate entities.
>
>Even if it was to be read broadly the issue could be decided totally 
>differently in other jurisdictions.
>
>The law review article itself recognizes that case law is scarce.
>
>I'm not looking for any particular angle, I'd just like to explore 
>all sides of the debate.  My paper would likely be 3 pages long if I 
>took that USDC decision as binding precedent not only here in the 
>US, but internationally.
>
>
>On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:55 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>>  On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>>  On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 10:30 -0400, Ernesto Rubi wrote:
>>>>  Someone, somewhere really ought to spend a whole semester locked in a
>>>>  room researching this.  If only I had graduate assistants...hehehe
>>>
>>>  I think this will happen when somebody decides to sue somebody else
>>>  about ownership rights.  That could trigger a whole new industry around
>>>  Internet Law, not only in the US but all the other countries on the
>>>  planet.  I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
>>
>>  It's already occurred, with the result being a District Judge 
>>reconsidered their
>>  prior order regarding to IP addresses and instead affirming that 
>>IP addresses are
>>  "administered in a public trust".   Relevant law article here:
>> 
>>http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/files/media/articles/v024/v024.i2.Ryan.pdf
>>
>>  I provided this information to Ernesto, but apparently it made more sense
>>  to continue with the specious property thread rather than anchor it in any
>>  actual jurisprudence.
>>
>>  /John
>>
>>  John Curran
>>  President and CEO
>>  ARIN