[arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights'

[Seth Johnson]

Apparently for you, the principal reason to "consider the issue more
closely from a policy perspective" is to try to present a theory of
property in information (and to do so here, in this venue, at this
time for whatever reason).  If you were really pursuing a reasonable
line of reasoning and presentation, you'd at least offer a variety of
theories, relating the claim of harm to areas one can hang one's hat
on better, maybe theories about how one can reasonably expect to be
treated in terms of expected practices.  Trying to make out a claim
that one owns pure information without talking about other ways one
could ground a try-able charge (and save court costs in attempting a
case that's easily identified as tendentious) is just weird.  Have a
proper discussion of the harms involved and how they could be tried in
some more grounded ways, if you're really concerned about "risks."  Or
if you're left with a simply claim of property in pure information by
some process of elimination, tell us how you get there, how any other
approach fails.  Otherwise you're just looking strange to me.


Seth

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Marc Lindsey <MLindsey at avenue4llc.com> wrote:
> John,
>
>
>
> The fact that there are no reported cases (yet) ordering ARIN to update its
> registry due to an abridgement of property rights isn’t evidence that the
> legal analysis is incorrect.  It’s never easy or trivial to prevail in
> litigation when strong interests sit in opposition -- even if the law
> clearly favors the harmed party.  Discovery tactics, procedural motions, and
> pre- and post-litigation settlements are all effective tools defendants use
> to keep disputed matters from going to trial (especially where the matter is
> of considerable interest and there is a risk of setting undesirable legal
> precedent).
>
>
>
> With respect to the property question, under your scenario (with trial plus
> appeal), winning such a case would be long and expensive for the harmed
> party.  And only worth doing if a less expensive and reasonable resolution
> were not otherwise available.  Until very recently, ARIN could avoid any
> material harm caused by wrongfully dispossessing a registrant of its numbers
> by just issuing the affected entity additional numbers.   Now that the free
> pool is virtually depleted and IPv4 numbers have economic value, I
> anticipate that there will be more formal disputes involving ARIN and the
> issue of property rights with the increased probability of trial and appeal
> -- particularly where ARIN takes the position that it alone gets to pick the
> winner and loser in a dispute between parties making claim to the same
> resource.
>
>
>
> But this isn’t the principle reason to consider the issue more closely from
> a policy perspective.   ARIN could easily mitigate its risk.  And in the
> post-exhaustion / transfer market context, whatever risk there is for ARIN
> in operating under a property regime is outweighed by the benefits to IPv4
> registrants.  With legally recognized property rights, current registrants
> and transfer recipients will have well established legal remedies to enforce
> the uniqueness of their address space and, for transferees, to protect their
> purchases.
>
>
>
> Regarding your last point, finding property rights in IPv4 numbers does not
> require a genesis moment or an express grant by the USG.  Nothing in the
> common law makes these prerequisites.  Pre-existing (non-property) resources
> can evolve into property.  And property rights can vest in a current
> possessor/holder where the prior owner is unknown, or unwilling or unable to
> enforce its rights (e.g., adverse possession and abandonment).
>
>
>
> Marc Lindsey
> Avenue4 LLC
> 2001 L Street, N.W.
> Suite 900
> Washington, D.C. 20036
> Direct: (202) 741-9521
>
> Mobile: (202) 491-3230
>
> www.Avenue4LLC.com
>
>
>
>
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:48 AM
> To: Marc Lindsey
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights'
>
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey <MLindsey at avenue4llc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by
> operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is
> readily extendable to IPv4 numbers.  We  would also expect that, applying
> this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did
> with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority
> to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2)
> registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for
> routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are
> reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the
> [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's."  IPv4 numbers, like
> domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names,
> they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property.
>
>
>
> If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any
> party
>
> which feels their alleged “property rights” have been abridged to seek legal
>
> relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry
> contrary
>
> to policy.   This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of
> results
>
> which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community
> policy.
>
>
>
> The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and
> rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The
> Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network
> Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property
> where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and
> updating its registry records.
>
>
>
> Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an
>
> expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of
>
> transfers, and this would be become difficult under a “IP property address”
>
> regime.   Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to
> recognize
>
> the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are
>
> supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been
>
> issued.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> /John
>
>
>
> John Curran
>
> President and CEO
>
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.