[147131] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP addresses are now assets
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Yen)
Fri Dec 2 15:02:38 2011
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:01:31 -0500
From: Henry Yen <henry@AegisInfoSys.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: Henry Yen <henry@AegisInfoSys.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+WCFcNJQP9aD710vqjSbziQx+Ght_T=vdWug4iBk322CoyZgw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:37:29PM -0700, joshua sahala wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:[cut]
> > Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks,
> [cut]
> ianal, but the treatment of ip addresses by the bankruptcy court would
> tend to agree with the definition of an asset from webster's new world
> law dictionary (http://law.yourdictionary.com/asset):
>
> Any property or right that is owned by a person or entity and has
> monetary value. See also liability.
>
> All of the property of a person or entity or its total value;
> entries on a balance sheet listing such property.
>
> intangible asset
> An asset that is not a physical thing and only evidenced by a
> written document.
>
>
> the addresses are being exchanged for money, in order to pay a
> debt...how is this not a sale of an asset?
I guess I'm in the same minority in that I agree with you.
Note that "Asset" !== "Property".
The IP addresses in question are unquestionably "Assets" (albeit
"Restricted assets" or hard-to-value assets), but not so evidently
"Property". So, the original subject line "IP addresses are now assets"
seems accurate; it does not say "IP addresses are now property".
Conflation of the two terms is in the mind of the reader, and perhaps
that's what John Curran was seeking to clarify.
--
Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
