[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Sep 19 15:40:49 EDT 2007

Actually this is only part of the story.  The World Intellectual
Property Organization, under the United Nations (WIPO) has already
taken control of the DNS system.  The way they did it was to declare
domain names to be Intellectual Property, and then use existing
copyright and trademark law to tell the registrars how to do
their jobs.

There wss, of course, no discussion or debate or any input from
the Internet community before such declaration happened.  There
was discussion afterwards, but it only happened in the guidelines
that WIPO setup.

This is how prior to this, individuals could own domain names
like mcdonalds.com or cocacola.com and so forth.  (and a number
of people did in fact own those domains at one time)

You might be interested in the following article:


"...The international lobby for the United Nations to have the ultimate
authority over the corporation (ICANN) is strong and noisy. However a few
months ago, the UN bowed down to pressure by the US Bush administration for
ICANN to continue to be in charge of domain names. For the time being, the
UN will have to make do with participation only in the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF), the organization that the international lobby would like to
replace ICANN. The IGF has as yet no real authority or involvement in the
day-to-day operations of Internet governance..."

I personally would be vociferiously opposed to any organization
taking responsibility from DoC that does not have as part of it's
charter, the recognition of NON-religious control of government,
the recognition of individual rights, the recognition of freedom
of the press, and several other major things of personal freedom.

This excludes, for example, the governments of just
about all Mid-East countries, (including Israel, as their
government is effectively under religious control) the
governments of China and India, and in addition, the
government of Germany.  (Germany outlaws even discussion of
Naziism in their country)

I have serious misgivings on allowing the UN to exercise any
control.  As things are right now, if China or Germany wants
to censor stuff on the Internet, they can do so by simply
inserting censorship on the major Internet gateways into their
countries.  The same goes for the MidEast religously-controlled

If the UN had control, it would be simple for China to tell
ICANN to censor at the source.  And why not?  It would certainly
be a lot more efficient than censoring at the country's borders.

There are many governments in the world that do not like criticism
and more importantly, the do not like a forum to exist that allows
government critics to find each other and organize.  The Internet is
such a forum and countries like Germany would like nothing better than
to censor it.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Dean Anderson
>Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:48 AM
>To: Kevin Kargel
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
>US Department of Commerce. (DoC)
>ICANN documents regarding the IANA function of the DoC, are a good place
>to start.  DoC has also intervened previously when Jon Postel and Paul
>Vixie some others tried to take over the Root DNS system in 1998.
>DoC delegates IANA function to ICANN. IANA delegates control to the
>RIRs. ARIN is an RIR, subject to IANA, subject to DoC.  The records
>maintained by SRI, NetSol, and subsequently ARIN belong ultimately to
>There is good book entitled "Who controls the Internet, Illusions of a
>Borderless World" by Goldsmith and Wu, 2006, which is quite helpful, and
>explains a great deal of history, including the "MoUvement" in which
>root server operators previously tried to exclude DoC contro and
>transfer control into the hands of a few people with no accountability.
>One of their ulterior goals was to exclude Network Solutions from
>operation of the .com and .net registry.
>The "MoUvement" was the name given to the effort to circumvent DoC
>because it involved signing MoU (Memoranda of Understanding) agreements
>between operators. The MoUvement effort failed with the intervention of
>the DoC against Postel, but you can kind of see it still in the NRO and
>the ASO (which also operate by MoU), and the statements of the people
>involved with these organizations to the effect that 'RIRs could ignore
>IANA and replace IANA with the ASO or NRO.' Of course, this would have
>the same effect as before: DoC would intervene as necessary to restore
>		--Dean
>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> I still have a hard time with this..  ARIN serves a wide area..  far
>> wider than just the United States or Canada..  which government are you
>> referencing that is giving ARIN authority and control?  Which
>> governmental agency is on the documents you refer to?
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:34 PM
>> > To: Kevin Kargel
>> > Cc:
>> > Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
>> >
>> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > So far as I know, Legacy owners have no license from "the
>> > > > government"..
>> > > > > there is no piece of paper from "the government" giving
>> > them rights.
>> > > > > Maybe I am wrong, but I have not heard of such a document.
>> > > >
>> > > > There is indeed a piece of paper, and ARIN keeps it in a book.
>> > > > Registrations were originally by paper and mail.  I suppose you
>> > > > young'uns don't know what those are. We also didn't have
>> > cell phones
>> > > > back that, and numeric pagers were "cool", unless you had
>> > to carry
>> > > > one for work.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > But that piece of paper is not from a "government".  ARIN is not a
>> > > governmental agency or department,
>> >
>> > The legacy paper is not from ARIN. It is from SRI, or NetSol,
>> > on behalf of the government.  The government told SRI to give
>> > the records to NetSol. SRI didn't invent that transfer. Then
>> > the G. told NetSol to give the records to ARIN. NetSol didn't
>> > invent that.  The G. can tell ARIN to give the records to
>> > someone else.  The records don't belong to ARIN.
>> > ARIN is just the administrator.
>> >
>> > The 'paper', electronic records of delegation, you get from
>> > ARIN is on behalf of the government. The RSA terms are
>> > different from the legacy terms.  Even within the ARIN RSA
>> > regime, there are different sets of terms, as the court found
>> > in the Kremen case: It found 3 different sets of terms that
>> > Kremen could accept.
>> >
>> > > they are not paid through tax dollars, they do not carry
>> > the "force of
>> > > law".
>> >
>> > ARIN doesn't have to be a goverment agency 'paid by tax
>> > dollars with force of law' to administer government records.
>> > Many government activities are paid directly through fees to
>> > private contractors, as the toll road operation example
>> > demonstrates.  The government has long used private
>> > contractors to perform some functions for the government, and
>> > the practice is increasing. The lack of tax dollars and force
>> > of law does not prove your claim that the records are the
>> > private property of ARIN and that ARIN can do with them as it pleases.
>> >
>> > BTW, some government agencies paid by tax dollars don't have
>> > 'force of law' (NIST comes to mind as an example of that)
>> >
>> > The records are government records, licenses/leases, that
>> > ARIN maintains and administers and in return collects fees.
>> > Just like the toll road operator maintains the road and in
>> > return collects fees.
>> >
>> > > I still maintain that legacy holders hold no license from any
>> > > government to the use of those numbers.
>> >
>> > You seem to have no facts to support that argument, and what
>> > facts there are, contradict that view.
>> >
>> > > I also still maintain that we should let them continue to use them,
>> > > but because it is right, not because it would be illegal to do
>> > > otherwise.
>> >
>> > It is right. And it is also illegal to do otherwise (well,
>> > illegal isn't the precisely correct word. It violates the
>> > legal rights of the legacy in the license/lease to do
>> > otherwise; 'illegal' usually suggests there is a law that
>> > would be violated by doing so, which isn't the case)
>> >
>> > 		--Dean
>> >
>> > --
>> > Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
>> > www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
>> > 617 344 9000
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>ARIN Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the
>ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
>www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
>617 344 9000
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>ARIN Public Policy
>Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the
>ARIN Member Services
>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list