[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on8.3 Specified Transfers

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Mon Feb 20 13:33:26 EST 2012

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
>> It's time to inculcate a free transfer market by removing ARIN
>> transactional impediments like needs requirements, when those
>> requirements were designed solely to foster conservative stewardship of
>> free pool addresses, not already allocated addresses, on a transfer
>> market where the addresses have a monetary value.
> They have monetary value only to the extent that they may be transferred.
> One must exist to create the other.  These are not property.

Hm.  The Adrex presentation at NANOG 54 seemed to indicate the
courts have ruled otherwise, that IPv4 addresses are indeed real
property that have value and can be purchased and sold to settle
debts in bankruptcy proceedings.

Are perhaps seeing a disconnect between what ARIN community
members think IP addresses are, and what the US court system
considers them to be?  And if so, perhaps we need to bring the
two systems back in alignment, before we get into a position
of pushing policies that contravene legal precedents?

Or would you consider ARIN policy support to be a form
of civil disobedience?  ^_^;



PS--oddly enough, I support this proposal.  I think Geoff Huston
had it right.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list