[136628] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And so it ends...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Thu Feb 3 17:46:55 2011
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:34:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: drc@virtualized.org, ernesto@cs.fiu.edu
In-Reply-To: <9A144B1F-323C-47A3-AA2C-F96E24A1729D@cs.fiu.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: And so it ends...
> From: Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu>
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:08:50 -0500
> To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
>
> Way off topic here...and into the legal arena:
>
> As to the monopoly classification, do you think, at least with ARIN
> (since it is a US/Virginia corporation) that Sherman Act 2 (i.e.
> antitrust) principles could be applied to require that it relinquish some
> of the control over said IP space/database and act in a more competitive
> manner?
Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from the actions of a
contractor "faithfully executing" it's duties on the behalf of the U.S.
Gov't. 'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting
on its behalf, nor to anyone operating a government-sanctioned monopoly.
> What about the other RIRs worldwide?
They're outside U.S. jurisdiction. Sherman Acg 2 is irrelevant to their
operation.
Even _if_ they were held to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction the prior
logic would apply to them as well.
> I'm not an antitrust
> lawyer,
Obvously. <grin>
> but there may be an issue there.
nope.
> > No. First, "IANA" does not exist. The term "IANA" now refers to a
> > series of functions currently performed under contract from the US
> > Dept. of Commerce, NTIA by ICANN. As such it can't declare anything.
>
