[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 26

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 22:25:40 EDT 2015


"sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set
up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address
registrations." Bill Herrin

Out-of-the-box thinking for out-of- contract addresses:)
Would that mean that ARIN would be able to request return of all resources
previously allocated to "legacy registry " inhabitants?
(silly question)

I'd be interested to know how accurate is our general knowledge of legacy
resources..I guess previous someones would have listed allocations but
chairs and tables do get re-arranged over the years.
RD
On Jun 3, 2015 8:32 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
>       (Seth Johnson)
>    2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
>       (William Herrin)
>    3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
>       (William Herrin)
>    4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (William Herrin)
>    5. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
>       (Seth Johnson)
>    6. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (John Curran)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:17 -0400
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
>         2015-2)
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJkfFBz1yZjxV0a2Cs5bvCcZHfsb+RJ-qcT=
> N9G10crjLOB3JQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
> > information as such.  It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
> > and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
> > that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were
> > accorded to Congress to grant.
>
> (and I am not one to call these rights "property," specifically
> because so much confusion has been wrought about information as a
> result of the notion that statutory exclusive rights such as copyright
> are "intellectual property."  You only find the term "intellectual
> property" advocated in France, before about 1980.  They're exclusive
> rights.  There are a few of those things that have been accorded to
> authors.  :-)  )
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that.  There's no such thing as
> >>> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright.
> >>
> >> Hi Seth,
> >>
> >> IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or
> >> trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of
> >> *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in
> >> the U.S., from the Constitution itself.
> >>
> >> I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something
> >> else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which
> >> includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere
> >> else in the ARIN region as well.
> >>
> >> Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common
> >> Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't
> >> begin to speculate how IP addresses fit.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bill Herrin
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:29:48 -0400
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
>         2015-2)
> Message-ID:
>         <CAP-guGWQppgai1ob_Ur0XW8uLNrT6OdqLuxjf30r-C=
> mFQaCqg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
> > information as such.  It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
> > and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
> > that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were
> > accorded to Congress to grant.
>
> Hi Seth,
>
> Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday
> activities, you probably don't even know its there.
>
> Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to
> you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's
> silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as
> documented by the bank check.
>
> That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible
> property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's
> because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute
> that was ever written.
>
> Anyway, look it up. Common Law.  Documentary Intangible Property. We
> live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any
> legislature and most of us don't even realize it.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:46:27 -0400
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
>         2015-2)
> Message-ID:
>         <CAP-guGW=
> xcATEdXg2e_mbry_VXzNLkgAj-jUOcbUSaXBQS-yLQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold
> > property rather
> > than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they
> > would be USG property
> > (dependent upon a rather interesting and convoluted set of agreements
> that
> > led to their
> > development.) Some contractors may have a potential claim as well; good
> luck
> > with that.
>
> Hi John,
>
> I've considered that possibility over the past few years. I don't
> think it holds water.
>
> Direct USG involvement in routing and addressing ended with the NSFnet
> contract two decades ago when they walked away abandoning everything
> to the various organizations which wished to keep the Internet
> running. Despite fancy words from the NTIA, they have no statutory
> authority to control Internet addressing nor any statutory authority
> to assert ownership of IP addresses on behalf of the USG. And unlike
> us mere mortals, the executive agencies' authority derives solely from
> statute.
>
> My bet: if a judge finds IP addresses to be property, no part of the
> USG will show up to even attempt to stake a claim. It'll be kid gloves
> all around with statements expressing concern for the continued
> orderly operation of the Internet.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:04:28 -0400
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights'
> Message-ID:
>         <CAP-guGUbTe7xN-btP8Asq5LmMiu7fqJ5h=E7M00a7ca-8ZH=
> 4g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> wrote:
> > On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >>
> >> Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by
> an
> >> ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant
> would
> >> not have to overcome anything written in the RSA.
> >
> > As a holder of legacy address space, I really had no interest in having
> ARIN
> > take over the registry that held the records of those assignments, but as
> > long as they were correct, I grudgingly accepted that outcome
> > (interestingly, ARIN then managed to subsequently change the records for
> one
> > of the blocks even though such a change was never requested.. it actually
> > made consolidating my holdings easier, but it shouldn't have happened).
>
>
> Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set
> up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address
> registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted
> split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to
> operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous
> about it. Should even be easier than a normal RIR since a legacy
> registry would have no need for number allocations from IANA. And now
> that IPv4 addresses have a significant monetary value, I'd like to
> think we could find the funding to operate such a registry as well.
>
> That way we could get rid of the periodic legacy v. RSA battles that
> infest our policy discussions. The legacy registrants would have
> whatever policy they wanted to have at the legacy registrar and that
> would be the end of it.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:05:55 -0400
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
>         2015-2)
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJkfFBy6R+VKnksR9chBVSM+=
> ogXVxWQYGu+zGjBbPU5RdwB7g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> That would be credit, negotiability, etc.  Not a right in information.
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
> >> information as such.  It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
> >> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
> >> that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were
> >> accorded to Congress to grant.
> >
> > Hi Seth,
> >
> > Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday
> > activities, you probably don't even know its there.
> >
> > Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to
> > you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's
> > silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as
> > documented by the bank check.
> >
> > That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible
> > property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's
> > because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute
> > that was ever written.
> >
> > Anyway, look it up. Common Law.  Documentary Intangible Property. We
> > live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any
> > legislature and most of us don't even realize it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 00:31:23 +0000
> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: BIll Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights'
> Message-ID: <71862D01-B51E-49C6-8BFA-4ADBB139E5FA at corp.arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > ...
> > Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set
> > up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address
> > registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted
> > split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to
> > operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous
> > about it.   ...
>
> Bill -
>
>  It?s not inconceivable, but does have to be harmonized so that there?s
> still a
>  single coordinated registry system to keep the numbers unique.  The
> present
>  practice for new IP registries is documented in ICANN Internet
> Coordination
>  Policy 2 (ICP-2), which provides for consideration of new Regional
> Internet
>  Registries per specific criteria, but it does not seem to cover the
> specific
>  case that you suggest.  (A copy of ICANN ICP-2 may be found online here -
>  <
> http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria
> >)
>
>  There would need to discussion and consensus on a replacement coordination
>  policy in order to cover non-geographic and/or geographic overlapping
> registries
>  (and I can imagine that there are several other possible models worthy of
>  consideration, such as central registry/registrar split models, etc.)
>
>  You could contact the ASO AC if you have specific proposal to regarding
> ICP-2
>  replacement - also note that ICANN occasionally hosts discussions on RIR
>  system evolution (as would be expected per RFC 7020), so that is another
>  possible approach.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 26
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/73115d45/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list