[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I don't agree with Martin on the property status (it's hard
> for me to imagine a law which provides for the ownership of
> integers), but, it's not hard for me to imagine lawyers convincing
> a judge that IP addresses are property.

It's not the integers that would be owned, but what the integers
represent. Perhaps you think you own a house.  Specifically, you own a
piece of paper (a deed) which has some numbers (property coordinates).
The deed gives you some legal rights to do things at a place identified
by the numbers on the deed.  That is what ownership means.

Ownership of IPs would simply give you rights to do certain things on
the public internet.

However, I'm not saying I support this. I'm just saying that arguments
that somehow the notion is invalid don't stand up. 

Presently, one has essentially a lease to IP addresses.  The question of 
ownership of IP's is similar to the question of ownership of land. 

I suspect the question could be addressed by a comparision between land 
(or deeded property) and IP addresses.

Registration. For both, one needs to fund a registry. (taxes on land or
fees on IP addresses)

Maintenance. Land requires maintenance. Ownership of land promotes
improvements based on pride in ownership. IP addresses don't require
maintenance.

Economic development. Land sales promote economic development.  Banks
loan money to buy land. IP sales won't promote economic development.  
Banks probably won't loan money to buy IP addresses.

The main issue is orderly use of IP addresses. A central registry is
required for this order, and is all that is required.  So, I'm thinking
that the current method of leasing is basically sufficient.

I'm a little concerned about cases like Kremen, and that the Registries
may think they aren't subject to the law. The Kremen case is pretty
simple:  Cohen had a favorable contract with ARIN.  A contract is an
asset.  Cohen lost a substantial suit to Kremen, and, as compensation,
the court awarded Cohen's favorable contract to Kremen.  This remedy is
no different from Goldman getting O.J. Simpson's assets: the rights to
O.J.'s book, etc.

There is no reason that ARIN can't perform for Kremen the exactly same
as it peformed for Cohen. Performance for ARIN is just changing a record
of assignment. Performance is done by a database change and appropriate
paperwork. So ARIN's opposition to that doing that performance seems
most unreasonable.  ARIN has already had opportunity to claim that it
cannot perform, and the court has already rejected that claim, yet ARIN
still refuses to perform the court order. There seems to be no
justification for that refusal.  So I can't blame a court that throws
the book at ARIN, and I have to wonder about ARIN management.

		--Dean




-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000