[arin-ppml] Legacy Space authority

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 3:52 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Legacy Space authority
> 
> 
> > Here in the US we do not have active hot wars going on over
> > the Louisiana Purchase, but they most definitely have them 
> > going on in the Mid East with regards to Israel's land ownership.
> 
> But in Canada there has been a low-level hot war going on for 
> over 20 years, specifically with regard to who owns the land 
> occupied by aboriginal peoples when Europeans first claimed 
> land in North America. Not too many people have been killed, 
> but there have been several armed confrontations.
> 
> > Eventually one day the allocation of IP addresses is going to
> > be formalized in a law somewhere in some government - and 
> > they will base that law on the precident that's being created 
> > right now by people doing what they are doing today - and 
> > that's being created partly by "opinions we may state on this list"
> 
> No, none of it is being created by opinions on this list. 
> However, some of it may very well be based on opinions handed 
> down by Canada's 
> Supreme Courts regarding aboriginal land claims. Vast areas 
> of land have been recognized as being owned by aboriginal 
> peoples, and where that land is now occupied by cities, the 
> courts have ordered compensation to be paid. It is a hugely 
> complex area of law, and since it is a form of international 
> law (the law between sovereign nations) it could very well 
> form a precedent for how international law 
> develops in regard to "Internet properties".

This is a ripe example of circular logic as I have ever seen.

Your arguing that IP addressing is property, and property is
subject to future legal decisions of a court which will end up
proving that IP addressing is property.

Kind of like the people that claim the Bible is the actual
word of God and the reason being is that it says so in the
Bible.

> > It already is.  The entire IPv6 allocation system is based 
> on how we 
> > do things with IPv4.
> 
> People are proposing some breaks with the past in regards to 
> IPv4. I'm not so sure that they have thought out all the 
> implications that this has for IPv6.
>

Well, since the IPv6 RSA that you have to sign to get IPv6 states
that by signing you agree that IP numbers aren't property, I
think that every day, week, month & year that passes results in
more and more IPv6 assigned under that agreement, and less and
less chance that 20 years in the future some court will overturn
that part of the agreement.

There may be some bad things with regards to IPv6 assignment but
at least this Legacy IPv6 argument won't be a burden to our
children trying to run things on the Internet.
 
> > Also, that soldier is breaking the laws of the government of
> > the people
> > he is killing, and if he is caught and put into a POW camp by
> > that government, they can torture him without breaking their
> > laws.
> 
> Not if they signed the Geneva convention on war. This is an 
> international treaty which, in effect, creates international 
> laws. These laws have been used to prosecute people after WW 
> II in Nurnberg and more recently in the International Court 
> of Justice in the Hague. When a country signs an 
> international treaty and then ratifies it in their 
> parliament/congress, this treaty becomes part of their law. 
> This is the basic principle underlying the European Union 
> where the group of countries signed more and more treaties 
> which then intruded more and more into their local laws. The 
> NAFTA treaties 
> are similar, although they are not as extensive as the EU agreements.
> 

Except for the loophole which the US showed the rest of the world
which is to merely claim that the soldier was a non-combatant and
that Geneva does not apply, and is a non-citizen so has no legal
rights to appeal for relief under your laws, and to further claim that
the torture wasn't really torture.  Thus, once more it turns in to what
your point of view is.  Even if the rest of the world all agrees that
the soldier was a legal combatant, and what you were doing to him
was indeed torture, what your doing to him is still legal within
your system of laws.

If the rest of the world decides to "not invade you" such as is being
done with North Korea and Iran, why then as long as you don't step out
of the borders of your own country, you will never be subject to the
rest of the world's laws and you can live to a ripe old age and die
contented that you have never broken the law.

The ICJ in The Hague is extremely unlikely to take up an IP addressing
case until WIPO has weighed in on it.  And I find that very unlikely,
if they were going to do that, they would have done it when they
extended copyright over Internet domain names.


Ted