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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Engel [mailto:cengel at conxeo.com]
> 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

[Milton L Mueller] Thank you. Simple, reasonable and correct point. 

> 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).

[Milton L Mueller] OK, but exclusivity exists in the same sense and for the same reasons that exclusivity exists in the occupation of a movie theater chair. If I am already sitting in a chair it causes trouble for both of us for you to come and sit in it. (conflict) In most cases it causes more trouble than to go and sit in another chair. I may have no legal right to that seat (my ticket may not be seat-specific) but most people will avoid conflicting claims for practical reasons. However, when seats get really scarce (as they are, e.g., in a Hong Kong movie theater as opposed to a Syracuse one) ticket sales get tied to exclusive, defined seat assignments. Viz, my earlier point about "propertization." If the word 'property rights' frightens you, call it something else, such as "scarcity-intensified exclusivity" 

>  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.

[Milton L Mueller] which we both seem to agree would be a Bad Thing
 
> At best, someone might be able to bring a case of torturous interference

[Milton L Mueller] <chuckle> tortious. This thread is approaching the torturous, however, so perhaps the pun was intended.

> 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.

[Milton L Mueller] interesting point. But it is the routing right you are discussing, not the exclusivity of address assignments for the public internet. And I believe that even Owen "Chairman Mao" DeLong believes that operators have private property rights over the instructions of their routers. 

> 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.

[Milton L Mueller] I think you are trying to say that ARIN _owns_ the registry database; i.e., has exclusive authority over what goes into and out of it? Wink wink, nudge nudge

> None of this speaks to what ARIN'S policies SHOULD be toward transfers
> or legacy addresses.

[Milton L Mueller] Correct! The attempt to come up with a clear definition of legacy has been hijacked by the foaming at the mouth caused by the conjunction of "IP addresses" with the word "property"