On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Ernie Rubi <erne...@cs.fiu.edu> wrote: > Way off topic here...and into the legal arena: > > As to the monopoly classification, do you think, at least with ARIN (since it > is a US/Virginia corporation) that Sherman Act §2 (i.e. antitrust) principles > could be applied to require that it relinquish some of the control over said > IP space/database and act in a more competitive manner? What about the other > RIRs worldwide? I'm not an antitrust lawyer, but there may be an issue there. > > There was a paper a while back from a UMiami (Michael Froomkin) professor > talking about ICANN and Antitrust. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0109075 - This > is a legal paper, not an engineering paper. > > I wonder if those same principles could be applied here. > > On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:42 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> That remains to be seen. If they give up their space, it is unclear that >>> they have any right to transfer it to another >>> organization rather than return it to the successor registry. There is no >>> precedent established showing that >>> this is allowed. >> >> Right. Like Compaq returned 16/8 when they acquired Digital (and HP >> returned 16/8 when they acquired Compaq). >> >>> That remains to be seen. IANA has declared them the successor registries >> >> No. First, "IANA" does not exist. The term "IANA" now refers to a series >> of functions currently performed under contract from the US Dept. of >> Commerce, NTIA by ICANN. As such it can't declare anything. >> >> Second, neither ICANN nor the USG has (to my knowledge) declared the RIRs to >> be "successor registries" (whatever they are). The IPv4 registry continues >> to exist and will undoubtedly be maintained as it always has been. The only >> real difference is that there aren't any more IPv4 /8s tagged with >> "UNALLOCATED". >> >>> The other thing to consider is that the RIR doesn't really need to >>> "reclaim" the block, per se. They can simply stop providing uniqueness to >>> the organizations that don't have a contract with them and issue those >>> numbers to some other organization that has a contract. The other >>> organization would know that their uniqueness is limited to those >>> cooperating in the registry system. >>> >>> Does an organization that has no contract with an RIR have a right to >>> expect that RIR to continue to provide them a unique registration? >> >> The RIRs are self-defined geographical monopolies that provide a set of >> public infrastructure services to the Internet community at large. It's an >> interesting question whether that service is limited to only those folks who >> pay -- my guess if the RIRs took this stance, they'd be looking down the >> barrel of numerous governmental anti-monopoly/anti-cartel agencies. >> >> However, pragmatically speaking, the folks who matter in any of this are the >> ISPs. The RIRs exist primarily as a means by which ISPs can avoid doing a >> myriad set of bilateral agreements as to who "owns" what address space to >> ensure uniqueness. If the RIRs reduce their value by no longer providing >> that service in an effective way (e.g., by doing what you suggest), I >> suspect the ISPs would find other entities to provide global uniqueness >> services. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > Ernesto M. Rubi > Sr. Network Engineer > AMPATH/CIARA > Florida International Univ, Miami > Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu > Cell: 786-282-6783 > > > > >
Pragmatically, compelling the release of a legacy allocation to a major company could be difficult, however, if the ARIN community were to draft a resolution to reclaim the space it may have a profound effect on public sentiment toward those companies. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
