[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

Sorry, it was Owen's concept that these numbers had no exclusive right to 
use, and thus the sale was a legal fiction.
(I'm not sure now as the post was long and not included, sorry if I am still 
being unspecific.)
I'm sure you know that ip addresses show up as listed assets on asset sales.
Microsoft payed $7.5 million for some addresses.
I'm tired of the academic arguments about their status as just a valueless 
string of numbers.
I suppose I could use 1-800-Flowers on my PBX as an extension number, and 
that makes those numbers valueless.
Maybe the judge should have said exclusive right to advertise them on BGP?

Regards,
Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate


On May 11, 2011, at 7:46 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> The discourse below belongs in 2009.
> Events have moved beyond your decisions about what is legal fiction and 
> what is legal fact.
> You can question the intelligence or judgement of the bankruptcy judge, 
> but not his power or authority.

Mike -

  Can you be more specific?

  If you are referring to Owen's remark that anyone can make use of any IP
  addresses that they wish in the configuration of their own equipment, I
  am unaware of any framework which would allow enforcement of a federal
  order which specified that "thou shall not configure equipment with IP
  address block x.y.z/nn, because exclusive use of it in configuration
  files of all devices in the global Internet has been given to party ABC"

  It is an interesting exercise to consider how such a contractual right
  could ever be provided, given the distributed nature of the Internet.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN