[ppml] Securities Act 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 11, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:

> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>> To argue that an IP address meets that definition requires a
>>> stretch of imagination that even lawyers can't handle. Only
>>> network engineers are capable of that stretch.
>>
>> I didn't say that. We all know that IP addresses are not property and
>> cannot be bought and sold. But now people are proposing that  
>> contracts,
>> bearing the right to use certain IP addresses, can be bought and  
>> sold.
>> That looks a lot like commodities contracts (which are promises of
>> delivery) and some derivatives contracts and even things like
>> re-insurance contracts.
>
> Question: does my rental property fall under SEC regulation?  No.    
> And
> I sell contracts to use that property.
>
> Go back to your act and read it again.  It clearly says a lot of  
> words,
> but the only direct nouns in play are clearly those representing
> interest in monetary items *or* mineral rights.  Interest in  
> commodities
> other than mineral rights are not included.
>
> And please stop playing lawyer.
>
Actually, I believe what is under discussion is not contracts conveying
the right to use the addresses, but, rather contracts which convey the
right to have your name attached to the recorded registration of those
addresses in a particular registry.

The fact that ISPs generally tend to respect that registry above others
in that region and that said registry is part of a cooperative of 5
registries that have each agreed to operate in non-overlapping
geographic regions is somewhat coincidental to the contracts
being discussed.

It is my opinion that the securities discussion is a rathole.  We have
already heard from at least one person much more qualified than
anyone else participating in the discussion so far that it is unlikely
the SEC would view this as a securities transaction.

Owen