ARIN /8s ?

[Karl Auerbach]

> >> As has been pointed out numerous times, an IP allocation is a LEASE, not a
> >> SALE.  Just as a leased house is not an asset you can claim, neither is an
> >> IP allocation.  Technically, ARIN will be leased a portion of the IP space
> >> (just like RIPE and APNIC, and formerly NSI) from the IANA.
> >
> >A "lease" is, under the law of most, if not all, jurisdictions, and under
> >accepted accounting principles, a property right, which, in fact, does,
> >and often must, show up on balance sheets. 
> 
> Where on your balance sheets do you show the telephone numbers you have
> been leased from your local telco?

In the same place where you show the value of a lease on property --
under assets and liabilities.

For example, if I have a lease on office space at a rate below current
market rates and you have the right to sublet,then I have a valuable asset
that needs to be listed.

The reason that one typically doesn't report assets like the right to use
a phone number is that the value is generally accepted to be too small to
be of concern.

If one has something which has a market value, and IP address allocations
are certainly among those, then there is clearly an asset although its
exact value may not be ascertainable until it is sold.

> According to my accountant (certified in my jurisdiction), "you never
> -have- to record anything as an asset".  Also, "if you got it for
> free...and you may have to give it back at any time...it's not really
> yours".  IPs are never _yours_ to begin with, so you cannot count them as
> assets.  She also was unable to find a better term for IP
> allocations/delegations/assignments than "lease".

In most states. if one has a duty to report their assets/liabilities, as
does any corporation or partnership, failure to report can cause
administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. 

The right to use an IP address is certainly a property right no matter
what one thinks of the underlying 32 bits.

A property right can be limited in many ways; yet it is still a property
right.

Don't be tripped up by the word "lease".  The right to use an IP address
is still a property right and it has value.

> >And even if no governmental agency is involved, a "lease" doesn't mean
> >that there are no reciprocial obligations on the lessor, such as a minimal
> >term, the giving of notice of termination, etc. 
> 
> If there is no contract, there are obviously no enforceable conditions on
> either party involved in the lease.  Up to this point, AFAIK there have
> been no contracts involved in IP leases; I'm sure this will change once
> money starts changing hands.

I don't know about that.  My network contract for my company has a very
definite written contract.  General contract intrepretation implies
obligations to enable either party to the enjoyment of the benefits of the
contract.  One could argue that rapid and frequent coerced changes in
addressing violates those implied terms. 

> >In other words, waving the word "lease" around isn't going to offer much
> >protection of a higher-level holder of IP space allocations/delegations
> >[pick your word] jerks around a lower-level "leaseholder".
> 
> Until people start demanding a contract with terms and conditions signed by
> both parties, there is no protection at all for the consumer.

I rather disagree that there are not existing contracts.  Perhaps not all
of them are written.  However, I don't see any parol evidence rule that
prevents oral contrants in these matters.

			--karl--
			Attorney at law
			California and US Federal courts