No, they do not view themseleves as leasing address space. They view themseleves as registering it. They are quite clear about this. The term leasing is commonly misapplied by people outside the RIR, but, I have never seen any RIR claim that they are leasing the address space. Certainly not in the financial sense. What they do say is that as long as they are paid the correct fees for registering the address space, they will not make a duplicate registration for another party. They just register the address space. They do not lease it. They do not claim to own it. They make no claims on the actions of others with regard to the address space. By common consent the majority of the internet regards the RIR registrations as binding effective ownership, but, that is voluntary on the part of each and every network provider. Owen --On Tuesday, November 4, 2003 7:25 AM +0200 Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ron da Silva wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:10:27AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Wong wrote:
I'm starting to figure that, given the delays, there's been enough damage done that 204.89.224/24 will never be able to get off the blocking lists anyway, so perhaps I'll turn it back in afterall. *sigh*That's what I get for trying to find low-cost ISPs willing to announce portable space.
So a RIR giving out that /24 would in fact be selling "damaged goods" and the customer who got it would be able to sue.I think RIRs have to make a larger effort to protect their assets.
But the RIRs are not selling any goods; are they not simply selling a directory service?
They view themselves as "leasing" out IP address space. Although they never reclaim IP address space that has long since never been announced. But even if it is leasing - if I lease an apartment that has termites and can prove that the owner of the building knew about the termites - then I would probably have a good case to sue. -Hank
-ron
Hank Nussbacher
-- If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.