[arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

[Fernando Frediani]

Not sure if this is really the main discussion but the point about 
owning IP addresses was an example of something that is actually the 
correct way it works, despite what happens in practice people don't own 
it, cannot sell it (even if they believe they have the absolute right to 
sell - excluding legacy cases). The fact is that it CAN be revoked as it 
is not their property as something that you buy.
In my view believing that someone "own" IP addresses has just the 
propose to be able to use it for what is not intended or was never 
thought (like sell it, speculate, etc). Address Space is to make the 
Internet work where it should not for people use in a very private and 
out of what is was always intended to.

Fernando

On 02/05/2019 12:35, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:50 PM Fernando Frediani 
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Why people always believe they "own" IP address space and nobody can
>     take it from them as if it was a router or a server purchased with a
>     invoice and declared in their annual balance ?
>
>
> Several reasons.
>
> 1. Revocation of a properly registered address space has never 
> happened before, at least not in North America. The few times any sort 
> of revocation has happened is when there was provable fraud in the 
> -original- application, ownership was claimed by someone who was 
> provably acting without the authorization of the original registrant, 
> or periodic registratino fees consented to under written contract with 
> ARIN were not paid for an extended period of time. Over ARIN's 
> existence there have been plenty of opportunities for ARIN to revoke 
> addresses for other bad behaviors including violations of the policy 
> manual. They have always declined to do so.
>
> The legal Doctrine of Laches more or less says that a right not 
> enforced is a right you do not have, regardless of writings to the 
> contrary. ARIN has never enforced a claim incompatible with the 
> registrants' ownership of their IP addresses.
>
> 2. Prior to 1997, the documents associated with registration neither 
> expressed nor implied any right for the registry to revoke a 
> registration for any reason.
>
> 3. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The registrant has exclusive 
> control of the block of the number resource to the extent that use by 
> anyone else on the Internet is universally held to be abusive. They 
> can be sold or rented without permission or attachment and bought with 
> minimal registration paperwork (or none if you're willing to operate 
> on a contract with the averred registrant rather than updating the 
> registration). Addresses are used in a manner that closely aligns with 
> the common law understanding of an intellectual property. For a court 
> to find otherwise, a litigant would have to affirmatively prove that 
> this thing which quacks like a duck is in fact a zebra. This has not 
> been done and there is reason to believe it is not doable.
>
> That's why folks like me believe we own our IP addresses.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> -- 
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com 
> <mailto:herrin at dirtside.com> bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190502/183ded62/attachment.htm>