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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Fri Feb 12 16:51:40 EST 2010

William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>> William Herrin wrote:
>>> Unless this proposal was instigated at counsel's request, you may want
>>> to consider letting sleeping dogs lie. The US has a public policy
>>> tradition dating back to before there was a US that anything of value
>>> can and should be ownable and owned by everyday citizens. ARIN
>>> practice is out of step with that tradition.
>>> You may have heard that there's a high-stakes free pool depletion
>>> crisis looming on the horizon. Now may not be the best time to reopen
>>> Pandora's box.
>> I vehemently disagree. In this context the value of the numerical exists
>> solely due to consensus of uniqueness.
> As much as I'd like to jump in to the argument, I think you've
> demonstrated my point: this area of policy is a Pandora's box which,
> at least for now, is best left closed.
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

I do not want to open Pandora's box either. I'm trying not to, and I 
don't think we are.  6.4.1 says that number resource are not property, 
the RSA says that number resource are not property, this says number 
resource are not property. It uses language that is almost a direct 
quote from the RSA.

The issue that this intends to resolve is that the use of the term 
"license" in section 6.4.1.  The intent was to rewrite 6.4.1 using 
language in harmony with the RSA. I need to let Counsel or John Curran 
provide any legal opinion, but I will say that Counsel has been involved 
in the process, from the beginning.  As the shepherd for PP#106, once 
this issue came up on PPML, I requested input from Staff and Counsel 
regarding this issue.

I do not think this opens a debate on the issue of Number Resource being 
Property, all of the texts involved here says they are NOT, this is 
completely consistent.  The only thing this opens is how we are saying 
that they are not property.

If we were to simply delete 6.4.1 then nothing in the NRPM would say 
that Number Resource are not Property. It is arguable that doing so 
could create a conflict between the NRPM and the RSA, that would be 
opening Pandora's box if you ask me.  I also believe it is clear to most 
people that the language in 6.4.1 is out dated, ARIN provides Services 
and not Licenses.

Finally, it is inconceivableness to me how 6.4.1 could be changed in a 
way that one could realistically say it is only a simple editorial 
change like what is being proposed for section 11.4.  Therefore, even 
though I don't think this language changes the policy intent, I believe 
it is necessary for a change of this extent in the language to go 
through the PDP process.


 From RSA: Version 10.0 (17 February 2009)

Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the number resources are not 
property (real, personal, or intellectual) and that Applicant does not 
acquire any property rights in or to any number resources by virtue of 
this Agreement or otherwise.  Applicant further agrees that it will not 
attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain or assert any trademark, 
service mark, copyright, or any other form of property rights in any 
number resources in the United States or any other country.


 From NRPM: Version 2010.1 - 13 January 2010

6.4.1. Address space not to be considered property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests 
of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered 
freehold property.

The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that 
globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is licensed for use rather 
than owned. Specifically, IP addresses will be allocated and assigned on 
a license basis, with licenses subject to renewal on a periodic basis. 
The granting of a license is subject to specific conditions applied at 
the start or renewal of the license.

RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting 
organizations are making a good-faith effort at meeting the criteria 
under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or 
assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organization is 
not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in 
following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right 
to not renew the license.

Note that when a license is renewed, the new license will be evaluated 
under and governed by the applicable IPv6 address policies in place at 
the time of renewal, which may differ from the policy in place at the 
time of the original allocation or assignment.


Proposed language: Policy Proposal #108

1.1 Number resources are not property

To serve the interests of the Internet community as a whole, number
resources are not property (real, personal, or intellectual). The
allocation and assignment of IP addresses, ASNs, and other number
resources are subject to the terms of the ARIN Registration Services
Agreement, the policies in this document, and any amendments as may be
made to either one.

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list