[arin-ppml] A compromise on legacy space?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Cliff Bedore
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:23 PM
> To: PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A compromise on legacy space?
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:21 PM
> > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A compromise on legacy space?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong 
> <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > > > ARIN does not give, lease, transfer, or otherwise grant 
> numbers to
> > > > people.  Integers are integers and regardless of what ARIN 
> > > does, every
> > > > member of society remains perfectly within their rights 
> to use any
> > > > integer they choose for any lawful purpose they wish.
> > > >
> > > > We have (perhaps mistakenly) referred to these registrations as
> > > > assignments and/or allocations, but, we aren't really 
> assigning or 
> > > > allocating integers.
> > > 
> > > Uh huh. And McDonalds doesn't feed people; it just sells them
> > > squishy objects in bags.
> > > 
> > 
> > Your definition of "food" is rather elastic. ;-)
> > 
> > There is much precedence for this in law.  If you go to 
> your state DMV 
> > and request a "custom" license plate with, for example, the 
> words "IP 
> > ADDR" on it, you may get the plate but you will not "own" 
> the plate - 
> > if the state decides at some later date that your plate is 
> > objectionable when viewed in a mirror (or some other such 
> nonsense) it 
> > can revoke your use of the alphanumeric characters used on 
> the plate.
> 
> Um Yeah and it's all spelled out in your application for the plate. 
> That was
> not the case for the legacy address holders.
> 

But it WAS spelled out for the post-legacy holders.

As for the argument that "legacy holders own their IPv4 addresses"
that is an entirely separate discussion from the concept that
ANY IPv4/IPv6 address holder "owns" their IP address allocations.

I frankly don't believe that it even was spelled out to the
legacy holders that they ever would "own" their IPv4 assignments,
but I also don't think that it is worth attempting to get into
an argument with legacy holders at this time who are "defending
their ownership" of their legacy blocks.  If you want to hold to
that, then go ahead - you must, however, be bound by your own
definition of "ownership" which INCLUDES the legal concept of
"abandonment of property"  Meaning that if a legacy holder
fails to use their IPv4, then by your own definition, they
have abandonded their ownership of it.

Ted