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

Chris Jester chris_jester at suavemente.net
Mon Sep 11 17:44:50 UTC 2006


>
>>    Even if you assume that allocations made by ARIN are not property,
> it's
>> hard to argue that pre-ARIN allocations are not. They're not subject to
>> revocation and their grant wasn't conditioned on compliance with
> policies.
>
> The reason that ARIN allocations are not property is
> that pre-ARIN allocations were not property. ARIN is
> merely continuing the former process with more structure
> and public oversight. Are telephone numbers property?
>
> In any case, since the conditions of the pre-ARIN allocations
> were all informal, unrecorded and largely verbal, nobody
> can prove that there was any kind of irrevocable grant.
>
> --Michael Dillon

IP addresses appear to be property - - read http://news.findlaw.com/
hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/kremencohen72503opn.pdf.  Given that domain names
are property, IP addresses should be property, especially in
California where are constitution states "All things of value are
property"

Also, what about ARINS hardcore attitude making it near impossible
to aquire ip space, even when you justify it's use?  I have had
nightmares myself as well as MANY of my collegues share similar experiences.
I am having an issue right now with a UNIVERSITY in Mexico tryin to get
ip's from the mexican counterpart.  Why is it that they involve lawyers,
ask you all your customers names and etc... This is more information than
I think they should be requiring. Any company that wishes to engage in
business as an ISP or provider in some capacity should be granted the
right to their own ip space. We cannot trust using ips swipped to us by
upstreams and the like. Its just not safe to do that and you lose control.

Actually, is there anyone else who shares these nightmares with me?
I brought up the lawsuit with Kremen and ARIN to see if this is a common
issue.  What are your views, and can someone share nightmare stories?

Don't get me wrong, I think there has to be SOME due dilligence,
however their methodology is a bit hitlerish.

If you have had similar problems, contact me off list or on, if you wish.
I'd love to talk to you. AIM is preferred.

Chris Jester
Suavemente, INC.
SplitInfinity Networks
619-227-8845

AIM: NJesterIII
ICQ: 64791506




More information about the NANOG mailing list