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