[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 108: Eliminate the term license in the NRPM

[Steve Bertrand]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> To serve the interests of the Internet community as a whole
> 
> Stop right there. No one has bothered to explain how it better serves the interests of the Internet community as a whole to insist that a scarce, exclusively used, transferable resource isn't property. Start there, and move forward. If you can. 
> 
>> ARIN provides number resources in 
>> the form of recording allocations and assignments in 
>> its function as a Regional Internet Registry. 
> 
> So? Every form of resource allocation requires a registry or some other mechanism of establishing and publicly validating the boundaries of the resource and matching the particular resource to an owner or user. True of real estate, taxi medallions, stock certificates, futures contracts, mineral deposits, etc., etc., the examples are endless. The number and virtuality of things that can be bounded and reassigned or traded boggles the mind. 
> 
>> The allocations and assignments are a service subject 
>> solely to the terms of the ARIN Registration Services Agreement, the 
>> policies in this document, and any amendments as may be made 
>> to either one.
> 
> The distinction between service and property is legally significant, but probably a lot more subtle than you realize, and there is no evidence here that you have any idea what implications that distinction has or how it improves ip address allocation to insist on one or the other. Let me just say that, from a political economy point of view, the assertion that ip address allocations "are a service subject SOLELY to..." ARIN simply means that the ip address space is the exclusive property of ARIN (or IANA). Is it your intention to assert monopoly power here? 

It almost seems as though you *do* have an idea of "what implications
that distinction has or how it improves..." [or doesn't improve] "...ip
address allocation".

Can you elaborate?

Steve