[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: afrinic-rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] "Community Property" and "Assets"
From: Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd () afrinic ! net>
Date: 2021-08-05 22:45:43
Message-ID: 2CF44996-0A37-43C5-8690-474C02F60FD7 () delong ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
> On Aug 5, 2021, at 14:20 , Paul Hjul <hjul.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> EVERY RIR says that the resources are not property, are not owned by anyone.
>
> Indeed, claiming title to integers is an absurd concept in that one of the basic \
> concepts of property is a right to exclusive use. No RIR can deny me the use of 5 \
> or any other integer, and no RIR can grant anyone any sort of exclusive right to \
> any particular integer. It?s just not possible.
> Something minor (actually on my phone, apologies if the formating is even more \
> borked)
> IP allocations aren't property, very few sensible people would ever pretend that \
> they are.
Hold on… Let's be clear…
IP Addresses are not property.
The registrations mapping addresses to particular entities in a particular database \
(or set of databases) may well be property and are often treated as such in a variety \
of circumstances.
It's not clear which is meant when you say "IP allocations" above, so I want to be \
very clear because the distinction turns out to be critical.
> I fear though that many in the community (little c, rather than big c global \
> Community) are trying to make IP address resources the property of Afrinic which in \
> turn means the property of insiders. Such people are simply either not sensible or \
> are brazenly dishonest.
> What IP address space represents is a set of agreements and practices which gives \
> value and a set of rights in using particular integers when connecting. The \
> agreement between a resource member and Afrinic creates rights for that member as \
> against Afrinic. Ultimately there is a system but unlike a patent (for example) as \
> property an LIR doesn't have a property based claim against the world.
Sort of… What IP address registrations represent are similar to your above \
description. There are no "rights in using particular integers" conveyed, by such \
registrations, but rather there is an "agreement that the registry will not issue \
same numbers to another party" and a number of ISPs and other router operators find \
value in this and choose to follow the advice of this system when considering who to \
accept such advertisements from.
I can't take my "right to use" from AFRINIC and demand that an ISP route my addresses \
on that basis, so it isn't a "right" to use.
Similarly, if I can find an ISP willing to announce a netblock on my behalf, even \
though AFRINIC says it does not belong to me, it's unclear how much the supposed \
"rightful" user of that netblock can do to stop said ISP other than through \
cooperation of said ISP. (i.e. the police or the courts have an uncertain level of \
ability to tell the ISP what to put into his router configurations).
The fact that many other ISPs may well de-peer said ISP serves as a motivator for \
cooperation, to be sure, but peer pressure is different from rights enforcement.
> The RIRs don't give you exclusivity on the actual integers but when you give other \
> parties an integer that you shouldn't you could be infringing on your service \
> agreement and so on with them, we are in the realm of commercial agreements not \
> property. And honestly I don't see this as a gap I see it as intentional and if it \
> wasn't for mayhem involving Afrinic actually a good thing.
Yes. Exactly correct here.
> The effect is that an IP allocation is certainly an asset. If you look at how you \
> record leases you'll see this working out very well. Of course the RIRs don't \
> allocate on a leasing to LIR basis (for one thing it's permanent) but the idea of a \
> resource in which the entitity has personal rights is the same.
Well… quasi-permanent anyway. (depends on annual renewal, conformance to RSA, \
policies, etc.)
> To talk of IP space as property is wrong but to ignore the fact that an allocation \
> is an asset is equally wrong.
Sort-of. You must consider that it is the registration itself (the mapping of \
entity<->number) in a particular set of databases that is the property, not the \
numbers on the back side of the mapping.
Owen
[Attachment #5 (unknown)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; \
charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; \
line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote \
type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 5, 2021, at 14:20 , Paul Hjul <<a \
href="mailto:hjul.paul@gmail.com" class="">hjul.paul@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" \
class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(144,202,249)" class="">EVERY RIR says that the resources \
are not property, are not owned by anyone.</span><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(144,202,249)" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div \
dir="auto" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(144,202,249)" class="">Indeed, \
claiming title to integers is an absurd concept in that one of the basic concepts of \
property is a right to exclusive use. No RIR can deny me the use of 5 or any other \
integer, and no RIR can grant anyone any sort of exclusive right to any particular \
integer. It?s just not possible.</span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(144,202,249)" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div \
dir="auto" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" \
class="">Something minor (actually on my phone, apologies if the formating is even \
more borked)</span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div \
dir="auto" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">IP \
allocations aren't property, very few sensible people would ever pretend that they \
are. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br \
class=""></div>Hold on… Let's be clear…</div><div><br class=""></div><div>IP \
Addresses are not property.</div><div>The registrations mapping addresses to \
particular entities in a particular database (or set of databases) may well be \
property and are often treated as such in a variety of circumstances.</div><div><br \
class=""></div><div>It's not clear which is meant when you say "IP allocations" \
above, so I want to be very clear because the distinction turns out to be \
critical.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div \
dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" \
class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">I fear though that \
many in the community (little c, rather than big c global Community) are trying to \
make IP address resources the property of Afrinic which in turn means the property of \
insiders. Such people are simply either not sensible or are brazenly \
dishonest. </span></div><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div \
dir="auto" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">What IP \
address space represents is a set of agreements and practices which gives value and a \
set of rights in using particular integers when connecting. The agreement between a \
resource member and Afrinic creates rights for that member as against Afrinic. \
Ultimately there is a system but unlike a patent (for example) as property an LIR \
doesn't have a property based claim against the \
world. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br \
class=""></div>Sort of… What IP address registrations represent are similar to your \
above description. There are no "rights in using particular integers" conveyed, by \
such registrations, but rather there is an "agreement that the registry will not \
issue same numbers to another party" and a number of ISPs and other router operators \
find value in this and choose to follow the advice of this system when considering \
who to accept such advertisements from.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I can't \
take my "right to use" from AFRINIC and demand that an ISP route my addresses on that \
basis, so it isn't a "right" to use.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Similarly, if \
I can find an ISP willing to announce a netblock on my behalf, even though AFRINIC \
says it does not belong to me, it's unclear how much the supposed "rightful" user of \
that netblock can do to stop said ISP other than through cooperation of said ISP. \
(i.e. the police or the courts have an uncertain level of ability to tell the ISP \
what to put into his router configurations).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The \
fact that many other ISPs may well de-peer said ISP serves as a motivator for \
cooperation, to be sure, but peer pressure is different from rights \
enforcement.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div \
class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" \
class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" \
class="">The RIRs don't give you exclusivity on the actual integers but when you give \
other parties an integer that you shouldn't you could be infringing on your service \
agreement and so on with them, we are in the realm of commercial agreements not \
property. And honestly I don't see this as a gap I see it as intentional and if it \
wasn't for mayhem involving Afrinic actually a good \
thing. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br \
class=""></div>Yes. Exactly correct here.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote \
type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">The effect is that an IP \
allocation is certainly an asset. If you look at how you record leases you'll see \
this working out very well. Of course the RIRs don't allocate on a leasing to LIR \
basis (for one thing it's permanent) but the idea of a resource in which the entitity \
has personal rights is the \
same.</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br \
class=""></div>Well… quasi-permanent anyway. (depends on annual renewal, \
conformance to RSA, policies, etc.)</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" \
class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div \
dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><span \
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" class="">To talk of IP space as property is \
wrong but to ignore the fact that an allocation is an asset is equally \
wrong. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br \
class=""></div>Sort-of. You must consider that it is the registration itself (the \
mapping of entity<->number) in a particular set of databases that is the \
property, not the numbers on the back side of the mapping.</div><div><br \
class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic