<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/4/2015 9:31 AM, John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<br>
<div>
<div>Matthew - </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Bingo! What exactly was transferred by that contract,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The exclusive right to use those addresses on the global Internet.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div> and how did the original party have the</div>
<div>“rights” that they claimed to sell to Mike? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Depends on how the original party obtained the address allocation.
Might be legacy, might be from ARIN, might be from another source.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div>If it’s rights in the registry, we know those only transfer</div>
<div>per the policies of the community. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We know that the right to be listed in the registry only transfers
per the policy, but maybe that's not the most important right (see
below)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div> If it’s something else, where do those rights originate and </div>
<div>what exactly are the rights being sold?</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>We’ve got many transfers of address blocks being done where
the contract says “transfer of </div>
<div>the rights to use and be associated with the IP address entry
in the Internet number registry”</div>
<div>For such transfers, the original party can show the RSA or
LRSA as proof that they have the</div>
<div>rights to which they speak, or can point to the Whois and ask
ARIN (as the registry admin) to </div>
<div>confirm such if they do not happen to have an L/RSA. In such
cases, the recipient receives </div>
<div>the same rights. All of this is fairly clear, and makes a
lot of sense to judges (at least from </div>
<div>my decade or so dealing with it.)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Makes sense.<br>
<br>
And yet those transfer contracts are almost certainly *still legally
binding contracts on the seller and buyer* even if after you do your
thing, you decide not to change the registration (say, because you
decide the need test isn't met). If the contract calls for reversion
in that case, then great. If it doesn't, then the legal contract
still holds.<br>
<br>
This is no different than what happens if I sell my house to you,
and sign the bill of sale after you give me the money, and then you
decide that you'd rather not take that down to the county recorder's
office. Who owns the house? You. Who has the right you occupy the
house? You. Who is taking some additional risk by having an
unrecorded transfer of title? You again (and me, a little, to the
extent the tax collector uses those records to bill me). But it is
most certainly not the case that a failure to record a sale means
"that it didn't happen". When you say that "a transfer didn't happen
because it wasn't recorded in the ARIN database", that is what it
sounds like you're saying, and where I think you're wrong.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>In the alternative formulation, someone sold Mike (as you put
it) the "the right to use those</div>
<div>integers as addresses on the global Internet”… <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Might be what the contract said, might be what you said. Not sure.<br>
<br>
But certainly someone could, if they had a unique address
assignment, sell him the right to use those uniquely-assigned
integers (and the seller would be losing whatever rights they had
sold)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div> It is not at all clear how someone ever </div>
<div>obtained that right so that it could be sold, or even how
that right is enforceable since “the </div>
<div>global Internet” would imply the entities that operate the
global routing table. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Maybe that would be poor wording. But Mike could still keep the
seller from asserting whatever rights they had sold to Mike.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Do you believe that ARIN issues " "the right to use those
integers as addresses on the global</div>
<div>Internet” with our IPv4 and IPv6 blocks that we assign out
today? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. I believe that ARIN provides some assurance of uniqueness and a
convenient centralized place for registration records.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>I know that legally we have no way of stating we are giving
someone “the right to use those</div>
<div>integers as addresses on the global Internet” - at best, we
can say that we provide them </div>
<div>exclusive association and use in the Internet numbers
registry system, including the right </div>
<div>to transfer in accordance with policy. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The right to "transfer the registration in your database" in
accordance with policy. They have lots of other rights, and many are
exercising them. Like the right to let someone else temporarily use
them. And, I would argue (perhaps especially for addresses not
encumbered by the RSA or LRSA) the right to actually "transfer" the
rights to use them to another party *whether or not* ARIN policy is
followed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>(Mind you, we could actually say “the exclusive right to use
in the global Internet routing table </div>
<div>as maintained by ARIN’s registry users” but doing that would
require that ARIN’s registry users</div>
<div>be obligated to only route blocks on behalf of the parties
listed in the registry… does anyone </div>
<div>really want this obligation with the Internet numbers
registry system?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
One could argue that the backers of the RPKI want exactly this. The
legal challenges should be interesting.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div> As someone whose run </div>
<div>several Internet service providers, I personally wouldn’t
wish that if I were still doing so, but </div>
<div>“rights” have to come from somewhere and if they are anything
more that rights to entries in</div>
<div>the registry, we need to figure out fairly quickly what they
are, and how they are made real.)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Coming soon, no doubt.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>As I said earlier, all of this becomes quite important if
parties are to have legal rights that they </div>
<div>can rely upon and enforce in court.</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In this country, people can assert rights and sue pretty much
whenever they want, and have those enforced (or not) in court.
Whether or not laws are passed or more policies are created.<br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>