[arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
mpetach at netflight.com
Mon Jul 25 15:46:29 EDT 2022
We've had this discussion before.
You can't lay a property claim to a number.
Google can't "buy" the number googol, and charge people a license fee to
every time they count that high.
I can't "own" the number "pi" and charge everyone who tries to make a
using it a licensing fee.
I don't "own" my telephone number, and can't sue phone spammers for
it when they robocall other people.
IP addresses are just binary numbers. That's it.
You can't own numbers.
All those networks that ran out of RFC 1918 space and were squatting on
blocks? Not guilty of theft, because the addresses aren't property:
I know I've configured number resources in my internal networks
that didn't belong to me, and no IP police came busting down my
What matters isn't the IP number resources, it's the agreement
among the community that there will be a coordinated and accepted
injection of those number resources into the global routing table.
Using someone else's IP space internally doesn't matter one whit.
What *does* matter is when you start injecting entries into the global
routing table that go against what the database of record says should
And that's why John is so explicit that what ARIN is keeping updated
is the single source of truth for what the community has agreed belongs
in the routing table.
But if I configure your number resources internally in my network, good
luck finding any judge that will rule that I have somehow stolen your
property by configuring a binary number in my network devices.
Number resources are just integers, and nobody can lay claim of
property ownership on an integer.
End of story.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:20 PM Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> That is why I always say John uses "Inside The Beltway" Non-Responsive
> He just stated to me that number resources are probate-able.
> That means something that has value to the estate or heirs.
> Normally property. Legacy resources were issued without contract.
> So contract law is not valid and it would be over 25 years old.
> So property law should attach.
> I think I hear John saying that, but I need an interpreter/lawyer for
> anything John says.
> You asked him a specific question with a non-responsive answer as I always
> get from him.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> To: "pmcnary" <pmcnary at cameron.net>
> Cc: "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com>, "arin-ppml" <
> arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:12:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:18 AM Paul E McNary <pmcnary at cameron.net>
> > Then why the threat?
> Hi Paul,
> In my opinion? ARIN has a legal house of cards built on the premise
> that there are no property rights in IP addresses. It's "true" until a
> court says otherwise so they want to give the court as few reasons as
> possible to say otherwise. Like any legal threat, the idea is to keep
> the matter out of court be gaining compliance.
> Bill Herrin
> For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML