<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<div>On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 20:04, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Are IP addresses property or public resources? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>- - - <br>
<br>
It seems that the establishment has already made its mind.<br>
<br>
see Milton's pieces:<br>
<a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html">http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html</a><br>
<a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/16/4797025.html">http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/16/4797025.html</a><br>
<br>
"Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million" .. to Microsoft<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To be very clear, Nortel did transfer its rights of certain address</div>
<div>registrations to Microsoft. Rights can indeed be treated as an</div>
<div>asset of an estate (e.g. airspace rights, mining rights, license</div>
<div>rights) but that does not mean that the underlying item is a form</div>
<div>of "free and clear" property, only that something (often limited in</div>
<div>nature) has been transferred.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and</div>
<div>interests free and clear to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection with</div>
<div>the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended sale</div>
<div>and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel and </div>
<div>Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the </div>
<div>addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement </div>
<div>(LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that </div>
<div>read "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA </div>
<div>and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to </div>
<div>this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". Microsoft </div>
<div>entered into an RSA (Registration Services Agreement) with ARIN, </div>
<div>which delineated the rights applicable to their use of the resource. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This information has been provided to Mr. Mueller, but followup</div>
<div>does not appear sufficiently newsworthy for any further coverage</div>
<div>so as to leave the readers with an accurate record of the events.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A balanced summary on the matter might read: the "establishment" </div>
<div>has not made up its mind (i.e. there is not yet a fully litigated and </div>
<div>appealed final judgement establishing case law), but in this case has </div>
<div>decided that it was in all parties interests to deal only with those rights </div>
<div>that the Internet number registry system (in this case ARIN) indicated </div>
<div>were available to the address holder.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Nortel sold something they never paid for, to which they added no value, and used to their advantage.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>All correct, but that is looking at a single tree rather than the forest.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We face an interesting challenge, in that significant amounts of </div>
<div>potentially available IPv4 address space in is the present system </div>
<div>due to underutilization of existing assignments. Some of these are</div>
<div>assignments from the early days of the Internet, and some are more</div>
<div>recent (such as those sitting in various consolidated firms after the</div>
<div>2002 Internet/telecom bubble burst.) We are now at a point in time</div>
<div>due to IPv4 runout of the central free pool where the ability for service </div>
<div>providers to make use of that space would be very useful, as some</div>
<div>providers may need some additional time to plan and implement their</div>
<div>transition to IPv6. At a high level, the options available to the Internet</div>
<div>community to make this underutilized space available is reclamation </div>
<div>or a market mechanism. As appealing as the prospect of reclamation</div>
<div>and reissuance appears, implementation would be very problematic </div>
<div>due to the legal issues, potential for inadvertent harm, and determining</div>
<div>equitable assignment policies where demand greatly exceeds supply.</div>
<div>The community in the ARIN region opted instead for a limited market</div>
<div>which provides an incentive for underutilized address space to come</div>
<div>back into the system, while still respecting the rights of the community</div>
<div>via policies over transfer (e.g. to mitigate the potential impact to the </div>
<div>global routing tables.) It is not a perfect system, but one that </div>
<div>accomplishes the goal with a minimal amount of self-regulation. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>