From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Dec 27 09:19:21 2006 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:19:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] that court case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apparently the court decided something - I saw this on CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/legal_attack_arin_dismissed/ The ARIN press release is here: http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf ARIN's media page (on this) is: http://www.arin.net/media/index.html Looking at the legal papers, I see a lot of talk about the statute of limitations running out on this matter. Was that the deciding factor, or did the court set any precedent that "IPs is not property"? (Sorry, IP addresses and AS numbers are not...) In the ARIN press release, it says that this is a "victory" for the policy process. The only document linked to from ARIN's media page that has the work "policy" in it is http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf - and I think that that is a document from ARIN to the court, not the other way around. I'm not doubting that the ruling is good for ARIN and how it works. I'm questioning my ability to understand the legal documents, mostly to know or understand better the legal justification for ARIN's (and I mean the membership, not staff) being. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch. From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Dec 27 09:45:44 2006 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:45:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] that court case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:19 AM -0500 12/27/06, Edward Lewis wrote: >In the ARIN press release, it says that this is a "victory" for the >policy process. The only document linked to from ARIN's media page >that has the work "policy" in it is >http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf - and I think >that that is a document from ARIN to the court, not the other way >around. That document is a court order from the presiding judge which affirms ARIN's role in administration of IP Resources, specifically: "IP resources are allocated by ARIN pursuant to the terms of a services agreement, which obligates registrants to comply with ARIN's Internet Protocol address space allocation and assignment guidelines." /John From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Dec 27 09:52:49 2006 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:52:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] that court case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:45 -0500 12/27/06, John Curran wrote: >At 9:19 AM -0500 12/27/06, Edward Lewis wrote: >>In the ARIN press release, it says that this is a "victory" for the >>policy process. The only document linked to from ARIN's media page >>that has the work "policy" in it is >>http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf - and I think >>that that is a document from ARIN to the court, not the other way >>around. > >That document is a court order from the presiding judge which affirms >ARIN's role in administration of IP Resources, specifically: > >"IP resources are allocated by ARIN pursuant to the terms of a services > agreement, which obligates registrants to comply with ARIN's Internet > Protocol address space allocation and assignment guidelines." Okay - what I had done was a text search on the work "policy" (as in policy process) because that ARIN press release cited this as a victory for the policy process. That's a quibble - either way, it's a statement on the legitimacy of the way ARIN is conducting business. I was really worried that ARIN won only because the case was too late. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch. From sleibrand at internap.com Wed Dec 27 10:06:24 2006 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:06:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] that court case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not a lawyer either, but in reading http://www.arin.net/media/dismissal-granted.pdf it looks to me like the court dismissed Kremen's lawsuit based exclusively on various statutes of limitations, without making any ruling on the merits of the claims. As far as I can tell, that document doesn't do anything to settle the question of whether IP addresses can be considered property or not... However, in the Conclusion section of http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf, the judge orders Kremen to submit a Registration Services Transfer Application, orders ARIN to approve the application, and orders ARIN to transfer some of the disputed netblocks (the ones the original defendant got from ARIN and ARIN still controls) once Kremen signs an RSA. As John Curran just mentioned, in its application for clarification, ARIN asserted its right to allocate IP addresses, which the court quoted in vacating the original order and issuing the clarified order. Not being a lawyer I'm not sure how strong of an endorsement of ARIN's position that represents, but at the very least the court isn't doing anything to dispute or undermine ARIN's argument. I suspect that this case will set precedent (at least in northern California) that if netblocks are included as part of a judgment transferring substantially all of an organizations network assets, that the recipient still has to go through the normal Registration Services Transfer process and follow the same rules as when an organization or its network is being acquired. In other words, it seems to uphold that little corner of the status quo... -Scott On 12/27/06 at 9:19am -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: > Apparently the court decided something - I saw this on CircleID: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/legal_attack_arin_dismissed/ > > The ARIN press release is here: > > http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf > > ARIN's media page (on this) is: > > http://www.arin.net/media/index.html > > Looking at the legal papers, I see a lot of talk about the statute of > limitations running out on this matter. Was that the deciding > factor, or did the court set any precedent that "IPs is not > property"? (Sorry, IP addresses and AS numbers are not...) > > In the ARIN press release, it says that this is a "victory" for the > policy process. The only document linked to from ARIN's media page > that has the work "policy" in it is > http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf - and I think > that that is a document from ARIN to the court, not the other way > around. > > I'm not doubting that the ruling is good for ARIN and how it works. > I'm questioning my ability to understand the legal documents, mostly > to know or understand better the legal justification for ARIN's (and > I mean the membership, not staff) being. > > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 > NeuStar > > Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-discuss mailing list > ARIN-discuss at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > "To Unsubscribe,<mailto:arin-announce-request at arin.net?subject=unsubscribe>." > From william at elan.net Wed Dec 27 15:29:19 2006 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:29:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-discuss] that court case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, John Curran wrote: > At 9:19 AM -0500 12/27/06, Edward Lewis wrote: >> In the ARIN press release, it says that this is a "victory" for the >> policy process. The only document linked to from ARIN's media page >> that has the work "policy" in it is >> http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf - and I think >> that that is a document from ARIN to the court, not the other way >> around. > > That document is a court order from the presiding judge which affirms > ARIN's role in administration of IP Resources, specifically: > > "IP resources are allocated by ARIN pursuant to the terms of a services > agreement, which obligates registrants to comply with ARIN's Internet > Protocol address space allocation and assignment guidelines." If I'm reading it correctly, that's not the reason the lawsuit has been dismissed. The reason is that judge found that statue of limitations (on "Sherman's act") has expired. See: http://www.arin.net/media/dismissal-granted.pdf I maybe wrong but it appears to me the real issues and legal questions raised in this case are not answered, ARIN just got lucky. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Dec 27 15:34:42 2006 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:34:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] that court case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:29 PM -0800 12/27/06, william(at)elan.net wrote: > >If I'm reading it correctly, that's not the reason the lawsuit has >been dismissed. The reason is that judge found that statue of >limitations (on "Sherman's act") has expired. See: > http://www.arin.net/media/dismissal-granted.pdf >I maybe wrong but it appears to me the real issues and legal questions >raised in this case are not answered, ARIN just got lucky. There is a judgement and than an order. The judgement was ruled based on the facts and indeed, the most straightforward approach argument was to point out the various time limitations. However, the judge did not have to change the outstanding order, but did so in a manner that affirms ARIN's role in administration of the IP numbering resources. That is the portion of the outcome which is referred to. /John