[92222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Fwd: RE: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Mon Sep 11 14:24:47 2006
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:26:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <53650.72.199.242.75.1157996690.squirrel@support.splitinfinity.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Chris Jester wrote:
> IP addresses appear to be property - - read http://news.findlaw.com/
> hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/kremencohen72503opn.pdf. Given that domain names
> are property, IP addresses should be property, especially in
> California where are constitution states "All things of value are
> property"
Intrinsic or non-intrinsic value? It's an important distinction.
> Also, what about ARINS hardcore attitude making it near impossible
> to aquire ip space, even when you justify it's use? I have had
> nightmares myself as well as MANY of my collegues share similar experiences.
> I am having an issue right now with a UNIVERSITY in Mexico tryin to get
> ip's from the mexican counterpart.
I worked for a large-ish ISP for over seven years and made multiple
requests for IP space from ARIN in that time. My experience with this was
not at all bad. I did not find it to be like pulling teeth to get the
space. As long as the request documentation is in order, it was not too
bad.
I disagree with the notion that IP addresses are property.
jms
