[arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights

[Stotyn, Mel]

I happen to have been raised in a way that would tend to agree that I
could be expected to go with the flow, as it developed, but I don't
think that I gave it any thought at the time. I would only disagree with
the assumption that "every one of us" had a "common understanding at the
time". Some people might have been under the impression that they were
being handed property rights. I don't know. I think that I would likely
have thought of it as a "commons", if I had thought about it, just
because that is the normal way that I think.

Of course, as any resource becomes scarcer, it tends to focus one's mind
more acutely and is influenced by one's basic nature. Mine, I think, is
commons oriented; but certainly some are more private-property oriented.
And, my basic nature does not set the policy of the companies that I
work for, nor do my statements represent the position of my current
organisation or the organisation that I worked for from 1994-1997 when
ARIN was finally born.

Mel Stotyn 
Senior Operations Specialist 
ENMAX Envision Inc. 
mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com 
Phone: 403 514-3443


-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at svcolo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:55 PM
To: Stotyn, Mel
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights

Exactly so.

Many people are arguing that the lack of an explicit contract/policy was
in itself a contract without a policy.  I disagree.  (god only knows if
lawyers would agree)

The real truth of the matter was that way back in that day every one of
us was involved in the ongoing development process, and knew very well
that we were going to be expected to step up and meet the demands as the
protocols and requirements evolved.  The current stance advocated by
some members is a modern re-thinking that completely sidesteps the
common understanding at the time.

On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Stotyn, Mel wrote:
> Jo Rhett said:
> "I wanted to have explicit clarity on what rights these are."
>
> This is probably the crux of the problem. Was their any explicit 
> clarity on the rights (or responsibilities) for legacy assignments?
> A block that I got in December of 1994 from the University of Toronto 
> (who handled block assignments in Canada at that time) had little 
> legal language associated with it and what was written was different 
> than what IANA was saying at the time, which was different than what 
> InterNIC said under the Versisign registry contract which may have 
> been different from what the Department of Commerce intended, who was 
> getting advice and policy development from Jon Postel.
>
> I'm having trouble finding documentation on the assignment. Since 
> there wasn't really any legalese related to it, we didn't think much 
> about document management related to the assignment. We just asked for

> the block, got one, used it, maintained it, thought of it as "ours"
> (whatever that word means) and carried on with our day-to-day work of 
> figuring out how to run a network with the IP addresses that were 
> handed to us with little explanation. In a sense, we homesteaded 
> before the surveyors arrived to put stakes in the ground and we're 
> still figuring out how to plough around them without digging them up.
>
> Mel Stotyn
> Senior Operations Specialist
> ENMAX Envision Inc.
> mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com
> Phone: 403 514-3443
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 12:04 PM
> To: Tuc
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights
>
>> lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did 
>> anything for such a long time, why now?"
>>
>> 	The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established
> in
>> December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to start 
>> this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98?
>> Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings

>> a year.
>
> Perhaps there was an assumption that people would do the right thing 
> without having to be forced?  This used to be a lot more common 
> behavior.
>
>> I guess I also go back to what was it that made you start this 
>> thread?
>
> My only motive is that pretty much every proposal on the table is 
> being argued about not on the proposals merits, but how it affects 
> non- signatories.  This issue has become the roadblock for all ongoing

> proposals. And lots of people are making all sorts of claims about 
> rights they would be giving up.  I wanted to have explicit clarity on 
> what rights these are.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
>
> Silicon Valley Colocation
> Support Phone: 408-400-0550
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> **********************************************************************
> ** This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above 
> and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not

> the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their 
> mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and 
> any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding.
> **********************************************************************
> ** _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550





************************************************************************
This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and
may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any 
attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding.
************************************************************************