<p dir="ltr">"sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set<br>
up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address<br>
registrations." Bill Herrin</p>
<p dir="ltr">Out-of-the-box thinking for out-of- contract addresses:)<br>
Would that mean that ARIN would be able to request return of all resources previously allocated to "legacy registry " inhabitants?<br>
(silly question)</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.<br>
RD</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 3, 2015 8:32 PM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)<br>
(Seth Johnson)<br>
2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)<br>
(William Herrin)<br>
3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)<br>
(William Herrin)<br>
4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (William Herrin)<br>
5. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)<br>
(Seth Johnson)<br>
6. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (John Curran)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:17 -0400<br>
From: Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML<br>
2015-2)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAJkfFBz1yZjxV0a2Cs5bvCcZHfsb+RJ-qcT=<a href="mailto:N9G10crjLOB3JQ@mail.gmail.com">N9G10crjLOB3JQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to<br>
> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with --<br>
> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something<br>
> that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were<br>
> accorded to Congress to grant.<br>
<br>
(and I am not one to call these rights "property," specifically<br>
because so much confusion has been wrought about information as a<br>
result of the notion that statutory exclusive rights such as copyright<br>
are "intellectual property." You only find the term "intellectual<br>
property" advocated in France, before about 1980. They're exclusive<br>
rights. There are a few of those things that have been accorded to<br>
authors. :-) )<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as<br>
>>> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright.<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Seth,<br>
>><br>
>> IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or<br>
>> trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of<br>
>> *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in<br>
>> the U.S., from the Constitution itself.<br>
>><br>
>> I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something<br>
>> else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which<br>
>> includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere<br>
>> else in the ARIN region as well.<br>
>><br>
>> Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common<br>
>> Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't<br>
>> begin to speculate how IP addresses fit.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Bill Herrin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:29:48 -0400<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
To: Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML<br>
2015-2)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAP-guGWQppgai1ob_Ur0XW8uLNrT6OdqLuxjf30r-C=<a href="mailto:mFQaCqg@mail.gmail.com">mFQaCqg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to<br>
> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with --<br>
> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something<br>
> that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were<br>
> accorded to Congress to grant.<br>
<br>
Hi Seth,<br>
<br>
Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday<br>
activities, you probably don't even know its there.<br>
<br>
Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to<br>
you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's<br>
silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as<br>
documented by the bank check.<br>
<br>
That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible<br>
property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's<br>
because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute<br>
that was ever written.<br>
<br>
Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We<br>
live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any<br>
legislature and most of us don't even realize it.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:46:27 -0400<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
To: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML<br>
2015-2)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAP-guGW=<a href="mailto:xcATEdXg2e_mbry_VXzNLkgAj-jUOcbUSaXBQS-yLQ@mail.gmail.com">xcATEdXg2e_mbry_VXzNLkgAj-jUOcbUSaXBQS-yLQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold<br>
> property rather<br>
> than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they<br>
> would be USG property<br>
> (dependent upon a rather interesting and convoluted set of agreements that<br>
> led to their<br>
> development.) Some contractors may have a potential claim as well; good luck<br>
> with that.<br>
<br>
Hi John,<br>
<br>
I've considered that possibility over the past few years. I don't<br>
think it holds water.<br>
<br>
Direct USG involvement in routing and addressing ended with the NSFnet<br>
contract two decades ago when they walked away abandoning everything<br>
to the various organizations which wished to keep the Internet<br>
running. Despite fancy words from the NTIA, they have no statutory<br>
authority to control Internet addressing nor any statutory authority<br>
to assert ownership of IP addresses on behalf of the USG. And unlike<br>
us mere mortals, the executive agencies' authority derives solely from<br>
statute.<br>
<br>
My bet: if a judge finds IP addresses to be property, no part of the<br>
USG will show up to even attempt to stake a claim. It'll be kid gloves<br>
all around with statements expressing concern for the continued<br>
orderly operation of the Internet.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:04:28 -0400<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
To: Matthew Kaufman <<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at">matthew@matthew.at</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights'<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAP-guGUbTe7xN-btP8Asq5LmMiu7fqJ5h=E7M00a7ca-8ZH=<a href="mailto:4g@mail.gmail.com">4g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman <<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at">matthew@matthew.at</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an<br>
>> ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would<br>
>> not have to overcome anything written in the RSA.<br>
><br>
> As a holder of legacy address space, I really had no interest in having ARIN<br>
> take over the registry that held the records of those assignments, but as<br>
> long as they were correct, I grudgingly accepted that outcome<br>
> (interestingly, ARIN then managed to subsequently change the records for one<br>
> of the blocks even though such a change was never requested.. it actually<br>
> made consolidating my holdings easier, but it shouldn't have happened).<br>
<br>
<br>
Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set<br>
up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address<br>
registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted<br>
split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to<br>
operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous<br>
about it. Should even be easier than a normal RIR since a legacy<br>
registry would have no need for number allocations from IANA. And now<br>
that IPv4 addresses have a significant monetary value, I'd like to<br>
think we could find the funding to operate such a registry as well.<br>
<br>
That way we could get rid of the periodic legacy v. RSA battles that<br>
infest our policy discussions. The legacy registrants would have<br>
whatever policy they wanted to have at the legacy registrar and that<br>
would be the end of it.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:05:55 -0400<br>
From: Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML<br>
2015-2)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAJkfFBy6R+VKnksR9chBVSM+=<a href="mailto:ogXVxWQYGu%2BzGjBbPU5RdwB7g@mail.gmail.com">ogXVxWQYGu+zGjBbPU5RdwB7g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
That would be credit, negotiability, etc. Not a right in information.<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to<br>
>> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with --<br>
>> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something<br>
>> that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were<br>
>> accorded to Congress to grant.<br>
><br>
> Hi Seth,<br>
><br>
> Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday<br>
> activities, you probably don't even know its there.<br>
><br>
> Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to<br>
> you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's<br>
> silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as<br>
> documented by the bank check.<br>
><br>
> That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible<br>
> property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's<br>
> because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute<br>
> that was ever written.<br>
><br>
> Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We<br>
> live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any<br>
> legislature and most of us don't even realize it.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Bill Herrin<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 00:31:23 +0000<br>
From: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
To: BIll Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights'<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:71862D01-B51E-49C6-8BFA-4ADBB139E5FA@corp.arin.net">71862D01-B51E-49C6-8BFA-4ADBB139E5FA@corp.arin.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
> ...<br>
> Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set<br>
> up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address<br>
> registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted<br>
> split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to<br>
> operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous<br>
> about it. ...<br>
<br>
Bill -<br>
<br>
It?s not inconceivable, but does have to be harmonized so that there?s still a<br>
single coordinated registry system to keep the numbers unique. The present<br>
practice for new IP registries is documented in ICANN Internet Coordination<br>
Policy 2 (ICP-2), which provides for consideration of new Regional Internet<br>
Registries per specific criteria, but it does not seem to cover the specific<br>
case that you suggest. (A copy of ICANN ICP-2 may be found online here -<br>
<<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria</a>>)<br>
<br>
There would need to discussion and consensus on a replacement coordination<br>
policy in order to cover non-geographic and/or geographic overlapping registries<br>
(and I can imagine that there are several other possible models worthy of<br>
consideration, such as central registry/registrar split models, etc.)<br>
<br>
You could contact the ASO AC if you have specific proposal to regarding ICP-2<br>
replacement - also note that ICANN occasionally hosts discussions on RIR<br>
system evolution (as would be expected per RFC 7020), so that is another<br>
possible approach.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 26<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>