[92174] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Kent)
Fri Sep 8 16:28:43 2006
From: Mark Kent <mark@noc.mainstreet.net>
To: joe@via.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: <C2703182-C7F1-4CEB-AAC1-21A077DDB562@via.net> (message from joe
mcguckin on Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:38:36 -0700)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>> More to the point, how can ARIN refuse such an order?
I would guess ARIN's point is "It's not yours to give" and that the
original court overstepped their bounds and clearly misunderstood the
whole notion of IP address "ownership."
Also, I think your example is almost as flawed as mine, and the
bidding for spectrum establishes a marketplace for it, while there is
no such thing for IP space.
I think a closer example is an operation that has phone numbers,
or perhaps more specifically, a 555 number. 555 numbers are supposed
to be for "information services" and are assigned based on some guidelines.
Suppose I win a suit against some bozo who runs just such a service
and has a 555 number and I get awarded his assets. So, I sell the
"information services company" but keep the 555 number for myself
(because it would be cool).
Should I be allowed to keep the 555 number, or should I have to establish
that my use will fit under the current guidelines, just like everyone else?
-mark
P.S. I get NANOG in digest form, so I may not be completely
up-to-date on this discussion.
