[ppml] IP address theft?

[David Conrad]

Bill,

As with pretty much everything related to addressing, the power resides 
with the ISPs.  If they choose to make 1.0.0.0/8 routable across the 
Internet, then WIANA will have succeeded in their 'theft'.  The only 
thing the IANA and RIRs can do is refuse to modify their databases to 
reflect a change in registration.

Rgds,
-drc

On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 03:35  PM, Bill Darte wrote:

> David,
>
> I understand and agree. In fact the 'legality' is irrelevant.  It is an
> operational imperative that the convention exists and is abided.
>
> Still if there are those who choose or through ignorance do not 
> cooperate in
> this imperative then there must be some corrective actions in order to
> elicit the proper behavior.
>
> When no force of law exists (and thankfully military action can be 
> ruled
> out), then the industry which is dependant upon the proper behavior 
> itself
> must enforce compliance.  But, can it?... and if not what then?
>
> Bill
>
> <David wrote>
> Bill,
>
> I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is "theft" in
> the legal sense.
>
> The global uniqueness of address space that makes the Internet work is
> merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both ISPs and end
> users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has been via the
> structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those
> conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to
> take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and
> multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same address space they
> claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have
> become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...
>
> Not a place I want to go.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard
>> WIANA
>> below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
>>
>> It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is
>
>> a
>> significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the
>> infrastructure
>> reliable and predictable.
>> Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it
>> theft
>> in the eyes of the law?
>> If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation
>
>> or
>> the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive
>> dominion
>> on these 'things'?
>>
>> Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
>>
>> Bill Darte
>> ARIN AC
>>
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
>>> such action?
>>>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
>>>
>>> Which is what a car jacker might say.
>>>
>>> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according
>>> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
>>> reserved since
>>> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
>>> remove that
>>> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
>>> following
>>> existing, published address allocation policies.
>>>
>>> This is theft.
>>>
>>>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
>>>
>>> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are
>>> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because
>>> most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of
>>> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
>>> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
>>> addressability.
>>> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for,
>>> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
>>> information?
>>>
>>> Rgds,
>>> -drc
>>>
>>>
>>
>