US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.

[Alan Bechtold]

I've been "lurking" a long while, trying to catch up on all the technical
sides to the question, but your response, Jawaid, forced me to jump in.

>1) So-called "anti-trust" laws are immoral, and are just another way to
>   put the screws to business, already America's most popular scapegoat.
>   Need someone to blame so that you can get rights-violating laws passed
>   in your favor? Blame it on business! Karl Marx invented the technique, 
>   Socialists of this century perfected it.

Your "opinion" of current law doesn't matter. You can't ignore current law
simply because you've decided you don't agree with it. We still live in a
country ruled by the majority and current anti-trust laws will or won't be
overturned if they are deemed by the majority of Americans to be no longer
valid. Despite his size and volume level, Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily a
majority.

In my opinion, without some form of anti-trust laws, AT&T or someone like
them would be running the entire show and there wouldn't be any discussion
here about how we should allocate anything on the Internet. Personally, I
believe current anti-trust laws protect businesses, especially small
businesses, as much as they protect individuals. Have they been abused and
over-extended? Yes, if you ask me. Have businesses ever abused the consumer
and attempted to dominate markets unfairly? I believe history would also
show this to be true.

>   I can quote all the laws protecting slavery as an institution in the
>   1800's, in an attempt to justify slavery. But it doesn't matter,
>   because slavery is *wrong* and so is anti-trust.

Laws protecting slavery are not current law. They were overturned by a
majority of the American people and are no longer valid, thus your point
isn't valid. It's your right to demonstrate in the streets against
anti-trust laws, to write your opinions that they must be eliminated, to
petition your government to eliminate them and to vote for people who
promise to eliminate them. If you are successful, and enough people agree
with you, they will go the way of the laws protecting slavery. For now, it's
law.
>
>2) IP addresses are not a "national resource". There is no such thing as
>   a "national resource". IP addresses are not 'scarce', either. Their
>   limitation of number is purely a technical limitation, and one that
>   can be (and is being) addressed by engineers (such as IPv6). (I'll
>   note that the exact same is the case of radio frequencies - their
>   'scarcity' is a technical limitation, as new technologies make it
>   possible to put more and more communications in smaller bands).

IP addresses may or may not be a "national resource." There ARE national
resources which must be protected. Whether IP addresses are limited enough
and valuable enough to warrant such protection hasn't at this time
determined. I believe that is precisely Mr. Bass's point. He believes IP
address space is a national resource -- but at least he states it clearly as
his opinion.

>> Opinion:  IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because
>>           it is a national resource.  Those planning to charege for it might 
>> 	  consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national  and
>>           scarce resource, such as IP address space.

Note here Mr. Bass, based on his quotation of the code, was stating an
opinion that anyone considering a move such as ARIN's should study this
code. I, too, disagree with his statement that IP addresses are a national
resource. As I said above, that is yet to be determined. But at least he
stated clearly it was an opinion.

>> Opinion:  Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address
>>           space  without competition, fixing a price might be considered
>>           a violation under federal code.
>> 
>> 
>> Action:   Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice
>> 	  and the Federal Trade Commission.
>> 
>> 
>> In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form 
>> NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these
>> federal codes.
>> 

Again, note Mr. Bass is clearly stating an opinion. And his opinion even
includes the wording that "fixing a price MIGHT be considered..." Opinion
can be agreed with or not. Even better, Mr. Bass recommends an action,
suggesting that a formal advisory from the Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission be sought. Followed by another clearly stated opinion.

This could hardly be considered an attempt to weasel out of anything, as you
stated, Jawaid.

I don't necessarily agree with all of Mr. Bass's opinions, Jawaid, but I do
agree with his recommendation. Better to find out what the regulatory
agencies think about ARIN's proposal now than have them come in after it's
all set up and rolling.

In my opinion, you would better serve the purposes of this discussion if you
clearly identify your opinions. Merely believing something is true doesn't
make it fact, even if you attempt to state it as fact.

--- ALAN
============================================================
Alan R. Bechtold
Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report
Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated
Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals
Member, AOP Board of Directors