[Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]

joe mcguckin joe at via.net
Fri Sep 8 17:36:34 UTC 2006

I read the complaint. I don't like the fact that a lot of my friends  
are named in the suit, but I think there are some
points worth discussing within the community:

1) IP address blocks are not 'property'

     "Domains are not  property. The assignee of a domain has no  
ownership interest"

     Network Solutions made this same argument  years ago. That was  
their shield against lawsuits when negligence
     (or worse) on NetSols part would cause a domain to be  
erroneously transferred. When mistakes were made,
     Network Solutions was notoriously unwilling to reverse the  
transaction to correct the error.

     Then they got sued for refusing to reverse a fradulent domain  
transfer, and they lost. The case had the side effect of setting
     the precedent that domains *are* in fact tangible property. Now  
when a registrar or registry makes a mistake, they can be
     legally held responsible. (What case was that? Kremen v. Network  

     I would say that's an improvement.

2) Why does ARIN believe that it can ignore a court order?

3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting  
up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this:
      Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum.

      If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as  
the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best
      use of it.

Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

joe at via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060908/6ae8b7d4/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list