[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[John Curran]

On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:09 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the
>>> registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within
>>> the routing infrastructure on the public Internet.
>> 
>> if you think that there’s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the
>> registry, then please provide a citation...
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I sell you hosting services using a block of IPs that I advertise to
> my ISPs. Another end user advertises routes to those same IPs for
> their services. Whichever of us has the solid registration claim wins
> the _tortious interference_ case against end-user and his ISPs.
> Handily. It's almost a cookie-cutter violation.

Bill -

Even a finding to that effect would not reflect any specific rights in routing 
table of the parties - it only means that that one party interfered in the 
commerce of another.   If you provide an actual citation of such a finding,
it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement.

> I expect ARIN counsel can identify additional torts for which the
> registration likely offers the decisive evidence of guilt.


Registry information is often used as evidence in legal matters, but that
does not support your assertion that “a registration is most emphatically
intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use 
of those numbers within the routing infrastructure on the public Internet”
Do you have any actual examples of someone enforcing this alleged 
right in court? (it would be helpful for the communtiy to know which ISP’s
routing interior/exterior routing table has been constrained as a result 
and in what manner.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN