[BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

> > Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it will be 
> > legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone 
> investigated 
> > whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be 
> considered 
> > illegal restraint of trade?
> >   
> Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE NCC 
> board, who would be consulting counsel on this one, I 
> suspect. Since no one on this list is a lawyer, could we 
> avoid uninformed legal speculation?

In order to make policy we need to know the limits within which
we operate. Sometimes that means that we need to consult lawyers
before we do things, rather than leaving it all to the RIPE NCC board
to clean up later.

Please do not make personal attacks on people that you do not know.
My question was based on INFORMED legal speculation. I've done a
considerable amount of research and thinking about these issues.

The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a fundamental
change to the character of IP addresses. I think it is a good idea
for the whole community, not just the board, to get some expert legal
input into the decision making process. As long as IP addresses are not
property, we can regulate them strictly and arbitrarily. But if the
character
of the addresses becomes more property-like, by allowing them to be
traded,
does this create more limits on what RIPE can do in its policy?

As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to find out the answers
to such questions.

--Michael Dillon