Re: IP addresses are now assets
Wayne - Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, so I'd advise waiting to review the actual sale order once approved by the court before making summary conclusions. ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a public resource. Address holders may have certain rights (such as the right to be the registrant of the address block, the right to transfer the registration, etc.) but these rights intersect with additional rights to the same address blocks which are held by the community (such as the right of visibility to the public portion of registrations). The registry policies (set by the community via open and transparent processes) govern the intersection and application of these rights. For this reason, ARIN works with parties transferring their rights in IP address space to make sure that the documents reflect that sales of rights are subject to the transfer policies in the region, including in this particular case. A party may transfer their rights to IP addresses, and such rights may have value to an estate, but this does not make the IP addresses "property" per se. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On 12/1/2011 7:20 PM, John Curran wrote:
Wayne -
Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, so I'd advise waiting to review the actual sale order once approved by the court before making summary conclusions.
ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a public resource. Address holders may have certain rights (such as the right to be the registrant of the address block, the right to transfer the registration, etc.) but these rights intersect with additional rights to the same address blocks which are held by the community (such as the right of visibility to the public portion of registrations). The registry policies (set by the community via open and transparent processes) govern the intersection and application of these rights.
For this reason, ARIN works with parties transferring their rights in IP address space to make sure that the documents reflect that sales of rights are subject to the transfer policies in the region, including in this particular case. A party may transfer their rights to IP addresses, and such rights may have value to an estate, but this does not make the IP addresses "property" per se.
Thanks! /John
Why'd you have to spoil the fun? You're supposed to wait a few days, let the pointless righteous fury build up and then step in and try to do the firefighting thing. It's must have been all but a month since the last time this flared up, it's surely about time it flared up again? Wouldn't want anyone to miss out on the fun ;) Paul
On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 12/1/2011 7:20 PM, John Curran wrote:
Wayne -
Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, so I'd advise waiting to review the actual sale order once approved by the court before making summary conclusions.
ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a public resource. Address holders may have certain rights (such as the right to be the registrant of the address block, the right to transfer the registration, etc.) but these rights intersect with additional rights to the same address blocks which are held by the community (such as the right of visibility to the public portion of registrations). The registry policies (set by the community via open and transparent processes) govern the intersection and application of these rights.
For this reason, ARIN works with parties transferring their rights in IP address space to make sure that the documents reflect that sales of rights are subject to the transfer policies in the region, including in this particular case. A party may transfer their rights to IP addresses, and such rights may have value to an estate, but this does not make the IP addresses "property" per se.
Thanks! /John
Why'd you have to spoil the fun? You're supposed to wait a few days, let the pointless righteous fury build up and then step in and try to do the firefighting thing. It's must have been all but a month since the last time this flared up, it's surely about time it flared up again? Wouldn't want anyone to miss out on the fun ;)
That's okay... it will happen anyway. ;-) For those who are following this matter, there are some more complete articles now (including pointers to the court documents filed) - <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/05/borders_flogs_ipv4_addys/> <http://domainincite.com/docs/borders-cerner-ipv4.pdf> FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 05:20:39 GMT, John Curran said:
ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a public resource. Address holders may have certain rights (such as the right to be the registrant of the address block, the right to transfer the registration, etc.) but these rights intersect with additional rights to the same address blocks which are held by the community (such as the right of visibility to the public portion of registrations). The registry policies (set by the community via open and transparent processes) govern the intersection and application of these rights.
Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than Cerner makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich litigating this one"? :)
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes:
Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than Cerner makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich litigating this one"?
:)
In any litigation, Counsel always wins. I often remind myself that there's still time to go to law school. :-) -r
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 03:52, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote: ....
In any litigation, Counsel always wins. I often remind myself that there's still time to go to law school. :-)
It may be too late. The glory days of getting a JD and then racking in the money are apparently over. I remember reading recently (in the NYTimes?) that newly minted lawyers are having a hard time finding employment, as the customers of the law firms are pushing back on the ever higher fees, and the firms are responding by a combination of outsourcing some research, and using non-lawyers for other work, reducing the demand for (and hiring of) new lawyers. Exceptions noted for the Harvard grads due to the OBN.
On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:48 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than Cerner makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich litigating this one"?
It's pretty simple: you can write a contract to transfer IP addresses in accordance with policy, and we are now seeing most parties come to us in advance either to prequalify or make the sale conditional on approval. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Hi John, I'm sorry to be thick, but can you explain "right of visibility to the public portion of registrations" a little further?. Under what circumstances might ARIN deny approval? j On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:42 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:48 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than Cerner makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich litigating this one"?
It's pretty simple: you can write a contract to transfer IP addresses in accordance with policy, and we are now seeing most parties come to us in advance either to prequalify or make the sale conditional on approval.
FYI, /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Hi John,
I'm sorry to be thick, but can you explain "right of visibility to the public portion of registrations" a little further?.
Under what circumstances might ARIN deny approval?
Joly - Requests are processed according the transfer policies <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight>. If a request doesn't meet the transfer policy (e.g. the sale is not to an actual entity that has an operational need for address space or it is more space than needed for the next twelve months), then it will be denied. If you think that ARIN should operate under different policies in the management of the IP address space in the region, you can submit a policy proposal to change the policy as desired: <https://www.arin.net/participate/how_to_participate.html> Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
-----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Joly -
Requests are processed according the transfer policies <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight>. If a request doesn't meet the transfer policy (e.g. the sale is not to an actual entity that has an operational need for address space or it is more space than needed for the next twelve months), then it will be denied.
Presumably organisations will check this and fake the appropriate paperwork and come up with some plausible excuse for requiring the space within the next 12 months BEFORE they part with their cash. It would be most amusing for somebody to buy space, hand over the money and then have ARIN deny the transfer. So I do wonder, how is this policy is being enforced and will ARIN be investigating this current news item? -- Leigh Porter ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Joly -
Requests are processed according the transfer policies <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight>. If a request doesn't meet the transfer policy (e.g. the sale is not to an actual entity that has an operational need for address space or it is more space than needed for the next twelve months), then it will be denied.
Presumably organisations will check this and fake the appropriate paperwork and come up with some plausible excuse for requiring the space within the next 12 months BEFORE they part with their cash.
It would be most amusing for somebody to buy space, hand over the money and then have ARIN deny the transfer.
So I do wonder, how is this policy is being enforced and will ARIN be investigating this current news item?
ARIN, on many occasions, has stated that they have no authority over legacy address space. They made this declaration in the Kamens/sex.com case. I haven't heard that anything has changed since then. Nortel/MSN was the first, big, public transaction. There have been others prior to Nortel. There will be more after Borders. Circuit City: http://www.slideshare.net/Streambank/offering-memo-ip-addresses-92111final Best. -M<
On Dec 2, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
ARIN, on many occasions, has stated that they have no authority over legacy address space. They made this declaration in the Kamens/sex.com case. I haven't heard that anything has changed since then.
Martin - ARIN will maintain the registry in accordance with community policy for all addresses and that includes legacy address space. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Dec 2, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
So I do wonder, how is this policy is being enforced and will ARIN be investigating this current news item?
Leigh - No investigation is needed, as I already noted the parties have sought out ARIN in advance. Note that original sales solicitation states: "Sale may be subject to compliance with certain requirements of the American Registry of Internet Numbers ("ARIN") and the court materials to date reflect this. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
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?
ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a> public resource.
imho, if it were truly a 'public resource' and managed as such, it would be returned to the appropriate rir for reassignment, rather than being auctioned off to the highest bidder by a (commodities) broker...administrative and processing fees are one thing, but this is pure commoditisation of a so-called 'public resource' by speculators. i am, unfortunately, in the minority on this topic On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:33 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote: [cut]
"Sale may be subject to compliance with certain requirements of the American Registry of Internet Numbers ("ARIN") and the court materials to date reflect this.
MAY versus WILL -- rfc2119 contains a pretty clear definition of each, which i am pretty sure echoes legal precedent..but again, ianal, so, ymmv, etc, etc the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't? /joshua
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:37:29 -0500, joshua sahala <jsahala@gmail.com> wrote:
Any property or right that is owned by a person or entity and has monetary value. See also liability.
If it was a RIR assignment, it's not "owned". It's more akin to a "lease". That said, there are documented rules/proceedures for transfering assignments. I'm not entirely sure they apply here. Legacy assignments are, obviously, a very different story. --Ricky
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
On 2 December 2011 20:01, Henry Yen <henry@aegisinfosys.com> wrote:
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.
What about land? it's a public resource that you've paid money to someone in exchange for transferring their rights over that public resource to you. That said, I think in the case of land shortages there is an argument that land no longer being used by someone should be freed up for use by new people. Although i'm not entirely sure how to justify a "instead of selling it you have to return it so it can be allocated to whoever has a need for it" policy without also justifying the same for my house, which has spare rooms that I don't need. - Mike
Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote on 12/02/2011 03:14:58 PM:
What about land? it's a public resource that you've paid money to someone in exchange for transferring their rights over that public resource to you.
Land is private property. Joe
In a message written on Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:28:22PM -0500, Joe Loiacono wrote:
Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote on 12/02/2011 03:14:58 PM:
What about land? it's a public resource that you've paid money to someone in exchange for transferring their rights over that public resource to you.
Land is private property.
Some land in some countries is private property. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:37:29PM -0700, joshua sahala wrote:
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.
On 2 December 2011 20:01, Henry Yen <henry@aegisinfosys.com> wrote:
Note that "Asset" !== "Property".
reread the definition: an asset is property. an intangible asset is merely one type of asset. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mike Jones <mike@mikejones.in> wrote:
What about land? it's a public resource that you've paid money to someone in exchange for transferring their rights over that public resource to you.
land is a tangible asset, and has largely been privatised when it comes to ownership. you can lease public lands, but when your lease ends, it is returned to the "owner" (the government), and any "improvements" (if allowed at all) are torn down or given over. sometimes you can sublet your lease, but this doesn't make it a new contract or change the original terms.
That said, I think in the case of land shortages there is an argument that land no longer being used by someone should be freed up for use by new people.
this starts drifting into a philosophical debate on privatisation and the use, control, and management of 'the commons' (land, water, air, etc.) and something which is largely (further) offtopic for this list. but, i digress...and the various dead horses here have all been beaten beyond recognition /joshua -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams -
On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:37 PM, joshua sahala wrote:
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?
Joshua - Rights to addresses (in the registration database) are being transferred for money. Those rights may indeed be "assets" (although that's likely a question better suited for lawyers) Perhaps "Rights to IP addresses can be sold!" would be a better title, but it's not exactly newsworthy since we've all known that for some time: <http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/>
ARIN holds that IP address space is not property but is managed as a> public resource.
imho, if it were truly a 'public resource' and managed as such, it would be returned to the appropriate rir for reassignment, rather than being auctioned off to the highest bidder by a (commodities) broker...
Agreed. However, attempting fairly to administrate a resource as it becomes increasingly scarce is quite problematic, and yet there is a real need emerging among network operators for IPv4 space as the regional free pool diminishes. The limited market mechanism provides a motivation for getting these resources back into use, while still taking the communities need for accurate record keeping and avoidance of deaggregation into consideration.
administrative and processing fees are one thing, but this is pure commoditisation of a so-called 'public resource' by speculators.
i am, unfortunately, in the minority on this topic
It shouldn't be speculators, unless they're particularly skilled at faking the operational need for the space they're obtaining and willing to risk losing the entire investment if detected.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:33 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote: [cut]
"Sale may be subject to compliance with certain requirements of the American Registry of Internet Numbers ("ARIN") and the court materials to date reflect this.
MAY versus WILL -- rfc2119 contains a pretty clear definition of each, which i am pretty sure echoes legal precedent..but again, ianal, so, ymmv, etc, etc
I referenced that language because it is in the public solicitation. Actual legal documents on transfers to date have been quite explicit on this point.
the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't?
Again, there is a limited market emerging in IPv4 address space, one in which the transfer recipient must demonstrate an operational need. Attempting to use the transfer policy to speculate would be rather adventurous (since one must agree contractually to compliance with the registry policies and to the veracity of the information on the transfer request...) That doesn't mean it won't happen, only that we hope that it will not get materially in the way of service providers who do need additional address space. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:37:29 MST, joshua sahala said:
the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't?
I'm sure at least some of those factions pretend it doesn't because admitting it does would be a game changer. I'm sure that *somebody* has a business model that assumes the non-existence of the speculatie market. And everybody knows that you never admit the business model is crap until *after* the IPO. ;)
On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:37:29 MST, joshua sahala said:
the speculative market exists and is growing, why do certain factions of the community keep trying to pretend that it doesn't?
I'm sure at least some of those factions pretend it doesn't because admitting it does would be a game changer. I'm sure that *somebody* has a business model that assumes the non-existence of the speculatie market. And everybody knows that you never admit the business model is crap until *after* the IPO. ;)
I admit it exists, but, I think it is currently relatively small and would hate to provide it any additional incentives to grow. I think it has the potential to be very harmful to the IPv4 internet in general. As long as it is relatively small, it's like a mosquito. Turning it into a B-17 would be bad. Just my $0.02. Owen
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Curran" <jcurran@arin.net>
On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:48 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
Would it be correct to summarize the ARIN position as "It's murkier than Cerner makes it out to be, and some lawyers are gonna get stinking filthy rich litigating this one"?
It's pretty simple: you can write a contract to transfer IP addresses in accordance with policy, and we are now seeing most parties come to us in advance either to prequalify or make the sale conditional on approval.
No, Valdis, the ARIN position is "if we wanted Curran to have a sense of humor, we'd have issued him one". :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
No, Valdis, the ARIN position is "if we wanted Curran to have a sense of humor, we'd have issued him one".
Changes in this area may be proposed via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process - <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html> ;-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:33:55AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
No, Valdis, the ARIN position is "if we wanted Curran to have a sense of humor, we'd have issued him one".
Changes in this area may be proposed via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process - <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html>
;-) /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Mischief Managed. The text of the submitted suggestion is included below. Sincerely, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestion received and needing confirmation: That ARIN or a party it designates assign one or more sense(s) of humour to the CEO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) is available at: http://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html /bill
Ah... *this* is the Whacky Weekend thread. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:33:55AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
No, Valdis, the ARIN position is "if we wanted Curran to have a sense of humor, we'd have issued him one".
Changes in this area may be proposed via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process - <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html>;
;-) /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Mischief Managed. The text of the submitted suggestion is included below. Sincerely, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _____________________________________________ Suggestion received and needing confirmation: That ARIN or a party it designates assign one or more sense(s) of humour to the CEO. _____________________________________________ The ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) is available at: http://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html /bill
participants (17)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Gary Buhrmaster -
Henry Yen -
Jay Ashworth -
Joe Loiacono -
John Curran -
Joly MacFie -
joshua sahala -
Leigh Porter -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Hannigan -
Mike Jones -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Graydon -
Ricky Beam -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu