<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey <<a href="mailto:MLindsey@avenue4llc.com" class="">MLindsey@avenue4llc.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">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. </span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any party</div>
<div class="">which feels their alleged “property rights” have been abridged to seek legal </div>
<div class="">relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry contrary </div>
<div class="">to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of results</div>
<div class="">which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community policy.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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. <br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an </div>
<div class="">expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of </div>
<div class="">transfers, and this would be become difficult under a “IP property address”</div>
<div class="">regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to recognize </div>
<div class="">the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are </div>
<div class="">supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been</div>
<div class="">issued.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks,</div>
<div class="">/John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">John Curran</div>
<div class="">President and CEO</div>
<div class="">ARIN</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>