Just because policies are in place that suggest an assignment may or may not be justified is wholly irrelevant to whether or not that assignment takes place (or in the case of the original thread, stays in place). ARIN is not in the business of saying "do" or "do not". Ralph wrote:
Is that true? I thought the space belongs to ARIN, and they loan it to certain parties. Those parties can use the IPs in accordance with ARIN rules.
I responded:
The way you've written the above statements makes them true. However, such a relationship does not extend to the issue you're dealing with. ARIN cannot dictate the business practices of its constituents.
DS retorted:
Actually, ARIN can dictate how its constituents allocate IP space because conforming to ARIN's policies is one of the conditions of an IP allocation and no ownership rights to the IP space are transferred in the assignment process. This argument has worked successfully for myself and others when negotiations with an address space provider turned hostile. (To my knowledge, it's never been tested in court.)
On Thu, 9 May 2002 18:16:52 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
Just because policies are in place that suggest an assignment may or may not be justified is wholly irrelevant to whether or not that assignment takes place (or in the case of the original thread, stays in place). ARIN is not in the business of saying "do" or "do not".
Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its policies as a condition of IP address allocations. Third parties can make reasonable arguments that they have standing to litigate these requirements on the grounds that the requirements were intended to benefit the public in general and hence they are intended beneficiaries. IANAL, but this argument was created by lawyers and has impressed lawyers. As I said though, I know of no case where it was actually litigated. The threat has always been enough to obtain more reasonable reassignment policies. DS
participants (2)
-
David R Huberman -
David Schwartz