[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

[Chris Engel]

> [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of this
> discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in a specific
> way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN holds rights
> over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the proposed
> definition because of that. If you are confident that no legacy holders will
> ever try to engage in trades outside of ARIN, then you really shouldn't care
> about this definition, should you?

Actually, if I could interject a fine point on this from an outside spectator and someone who is also not a lawyer. I don't believe that technically ARIN has or even could "hold rights over the exchange" of IP addresses.  That would imply that ARIN has the authority to exclude entities that it has no contractual relationship with from use of those addresses and do so across multiple jurisdictions, including those which have no formal legal relationship with the U.S.  It's the same reason why I believe IP addresses don't really count as "property"  in the traditional sense (as the holder lacks the right or means to exclude others from their use).  From a practical sense, that would require ARIN to exercise control over networks, routers, NIC's , etc. that somebody else OWNS and again across multiple jurisdictions.

At best, someone might be able to bring a case of torturous interference against someone using an IP address that ARIN officially assigned to someone else.  However, even in that case, I believe, there would have to be some reasonable expectation that the end user had a right to access those services over that particular network. That might fly for most transit provider networks, but probably not for the vast majority of end user networks.  For example, if as a Private Enterprise End Network, I null routed Facebook's IP address(s) or even routed them to an internal web-server that hosted the corporate policy against accessing social media sites at work, I don't believe either ARIN or Facebook would have effective legal recourse against me doing so. Especially if the contractual agreement that employees signed explicitly indicated the terms of use by which they could utilize our network. It'd be the equivalent of NBC suing me for telling my 9 year old, no TV in the house after 10:00 PM.

What, I BELIEVE, ARIN exercises the rights over is listings within their OWN databases.  Since most operators consider that the, de facto, registry of record for IP addresses, that has a vast influence over any IP address that you want to be widely accessible through public networks. Even here, I don't believe there is anything that actually compels operators to use ARIN's registry, other then common sense and a desire for smooth interoperability.

None of this speaks to what ARIN'S policies SHOULD be toward transfers or legacy addresses. I'm about as libertarian as anybody, but I think the idea of trying to assign private property rights to IP addresses is about as absurd as trying to assign private property rights to the concept of Pi . If it's any sort of "property" it's a very odd and non-standard one, where your ability to limit others use of it applies only under a very narrow range of circumstances. YMMV.


Christopher Engel