Thus spake Brandon Galbraith
Two questions regarding thisfor the list (slightly OT):
1) Has any sort of IP address ownership precedence been set in a US
court?
Not that I'm aware of, but I've never looked. I'm sure ARIN's lawyers
have.
2) Isn't ARIN considered a non-profit resource management/allocation
organization? To my knowledge, there is no "marketplace" for IPs.
The entire suit is predicated on the concept that IP addresses can be
owned and traded like other property. The rest is a house of cards that
will fall if ARIN can prove that to be incorrect -- and will probably
stand if they can't.
Also, any technical expert can rip about half of the house down without
breaking a sweat because it's so flawed to the point of being
entertaining. It'd be fun to read the transcripts if this ever goes to
trial, but my money says it'll be decided one way or the other before it
actually makes it into a courtroom.
The wording of Kremen's argument made me understand why ARIN is so
resistant to using the term "rent" for their activities, because that
implies that there is property exchanging hands. Courts have
jurisdiction over property, though it's a minefield to try to dictate
who someone must rent to. Keeping the words in registry-speak allows
them to differentiate the situation and insist that addresses are not
property at all.
The anti-trust angle is interesting, but even if ARIN were found to be
one, it's hard to convince people that a _non-profit_ monopoly acting in
the public interest is a bad thing. The debate there will be around the
preferential treatment that larger ARIN members get (in terms of larger
allocations, lower per address fees, etc), which Kremen construes as
being anticompetitive via creating artificial barriers to entry. That
may end up being changed.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking