That page is rather out of date as the RIPE policy it refers to was passed and then modified to (somewhat) restore needs basis.
Owen
The agency with actual authority in these matters (NTIA)
subsequently issued a
statement of the the US Government’s Internet Protocol
Numbering Principles,
which noted that “the American Registry for Internet Numbers
(ARIN) is the RIR
for Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands, and
the United States
and furthermore that the USG “participates in the development
of and is supportive
of the policies, processes, and procedures agreed upon by the
Internet technical community through ARIN.”
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/united-states-government-s-internet-protocol-numbering-principles>i.e. ARIN continues to enforce the community-developed policies
on all resources in the registry, and including legal undertakings
where necessary to that end.
Howdy,
In the interest of making the question just about as clear as mud, I
would point out several things:
1. The NTIA does not claim to be a source of authority for the
management of IP addresses. The things written above are essentially
accurate but take care not to read more than was said.
2. No act of congress authorizes the NTIA nor any other branch of the
U.S. government to act as a source of authority with respect to IP
addresses. \
DARPA had clear authority to control what IP addresses were used on
the ARPAnet. NSF had clear authority to control what IP addresses were
used on the NSFnet backbone only. Neither claimed any authority over
the use of IP addresses on any other network.
3. In it's 20-year history, ARIN has taken no actions whatsoever
against legacy address holders inconsistent with legacy address blocks
being common law property, save this: ARIN has not consistently
updated the registry to reflect a new registrant for an address block
unless the new registrant has signed a registration services
agreement. Note that ARIN has updated the registrant for legacy
registrations without service agreements, just not consistently.
ARIN asserts they've taken no action because community developed
policy instructs them not to. That is a half-truth. The whole truth
is that ARIN has bent over backwards to avoid testing in court whether
they have the lawful authority to enforce any policies against legacy
address holders, even to the extent of bending or breaking their own
policies when settling a court case. For example, Microsoft was
permitted to register the Nortel addresses under the weaker Legacy
Registration Services Agreement when the plain language of the
then-extant policies required the use of the primary RSA.
4. No statute, regulation or judicial finding either confirms or
refutes ARIN's ability to lawfully refuse such updates. All relevant
cases have either been settled prior to a judicial finding, or
resulted in the registration's termination for other reasons
(generally fraud of some sort).
5. Regardless of the content's of ARIN's registry, ARIN claims no
authority over whether and on whose behalf any specific IP addresses
are routed on the Internet, save for those addresses ARIN uses
directly for its own purposes.
Pragmatically, if you want to buy an address block, the path of least
resistance is: register with ARIN.
From a purist "what are my rights" standpoint: John Curran's comments
notwithstanding, that's not so clear.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
...
3. In it's 20-year history, ARIN has taken no actions whatsoever
against legacy address holders inconsistent with legacy address blocks
being common law property, save this: ARIN has not consistently
updated the registry to reflect a new registrant for an address block
unless the new registrant has signed a registration services
agreement. Note that ARIN has updated the registrant for legacy
registrations without service agreements, just not consistently.ARIN asserts they've taken no action because community developed
policy instructs them not to. That is a half-truth. The whole truth
is that ARIN has bent over backwards to avoid testing in court whether
they have the lawful authority to enforce any policies against legacy
address holders, even to the extent of bending or breaking their own
policies when settling a court case. For example, Microsoft was
permitted to register the Nortel addresses under the weaker Legacy
Registration Services Agreement when the plain language of the
then-extant policies required the use of the primary RSA.
Bill - You’re not quite correct with these statements, as there have been many
court orders that require parties to enter into an RSA and comply with the IP
registry policy – this is actually fairly common outcome of bankruptcy cases.
(Refer to <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-May/024780.html>
for just some examples.) It is true that parties consent to these agreements,
as ARIN does not transfer the address block unless in compliance with policy.
We have routinely argue that IP address blocks are not common law property
and prevail - we have never been ordered to make registry updates contrary
to the community policy.
4. No statute, regulation or judicial finding either confirms or
refutes ARIN's ability to lawfully refuse such updates. All relevant
cases have either been settled prior to a judicial finding, or
resulted in the registration's termination for other reasons
(generally fraud of some sort).
Half-correct, in that these bankruptcy cases do result in judicial orders;
however, the fact that the parties consent to the terms in order to proceed
with the transfer is correct. (Presumably they would do otherwise if they
had a valid basis for argument, but that hasn’t happened.)
...
Pragmatically, if you want to buy an address block, the path of least
resistance is: register with ARIN.From a purist "what are my rights" standpoint: John Curran's comments
notwithstanding, that's not so clear.
Also correct - hence why I suggested that “a broker (and/or informed legal counsel)
can provide a view which is solely focused on the address holder’s interests”
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
ARIN asserts they've taken no action because community developed
policy instructs them not to. That is a half-truth. The whole truth
is that ARIN has bent over backwards to avoid testing in court whether
they have the lawful authority to enforce any policies against legacy
address holders, even to the extent of bending or breaking their own
policies when settling a court case.Bill - You’re not quite correct with these statements, as there
have been many court orders that require parties to enter
into an RSA and comply with the IP registry policy
Hi John,
I was a little sloppy with my language. When two parties in a court
case reach an agreement and ask the judge to accept that agreement,
the result is a court order. It is not, however, a precedent-setting
judgement.
Half-correct, in that these bankruptcy cases do result in judicial orders;
however, the fact that the parties consent to the terms in order to proceed
with the transfer is correct.
(Presumably they would do otherwise if they
had a valid basis for argument, but that hasn’t happened.)
That reasoning escapes me. How does years in court fighting ARIN
advantage a buyer in a bankruptcy sale? Make the best deal you can
without a fight and quickly close. Bankruptcies are all about
pragmatism.
We have routinely argue that IP address blocks are not
common law property and prevail - we have never been
ordered to make registry updates contrary
to the community policy.
You prevail through consent. In one sense, that speaks well of you.
But no court has ruled either for you or against you. There is
literally no precedent on the matter of addresses as property as a
result of the cases ARIN has been involved in. And in my opinion, ARIN
has cut a couple shifty deals to avoid having a judge rule in a way
that would set a precedent.
That probably comes across harsher than I intend. I think it's good
that ARIN seeks agreement over conflict. Wise even - addresses handed
out after ARIN's inception are governed under much clearer contract
law. Enough delay settling the law with respect to legacy IPv4
addresses will let IPv6 render the issue moot.
Anyway, my point is that ARIN's position on the matter aside, no one
holding legacy IP addresses should believe that addresses as
non-property is settled law.
And with that I'll get off my soap box and bid you a good evening.
Regards,
Bill Herrin