[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[John Day]

Correct. Totally agree.  There needs to be a legal framework between 
the central authority and those it delegates to administer 
sub-domains of the address space,  In this case where we have 
provider based addresses, the providers.  (This is like my earlier 
analogy of the state delegating to the counties to address their 
roads.)  However, the customers of the providers do not enter into 
this.

This is what Curran has been pointing to as I understand it.

At 18:12 -0700 2010/10/14, Richard Bennett wrote:
>  The trouble is, John, that any system that's widely used, as the 
>Internet is, requires a legal framework for resolving disputes over 
>terms of use, contracts, and ownership, so simply running off the 
>lawyers isn't really an option. The technology defines some 
>boundaries around the work of the lawyers, but it doesn't make them 
>irrelevant. The Internet's global system of addressing requires a 
>central authority to ensure address and route uniqueness; that's 
>something we have to live with. Law is therefore necessary to ensure 
>that the behavior of the authority and its designees is consistent 
>with public policy.
>
>RB
>
>On 10/14/2010 5:33 PM, John Day wrote:
>>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
>>
>
>--
>Richard Bennett