[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

In message <CALZ3u+ZoqY19n28-9ZNu8q2O+EZnjGLve1Ri1aCn90ThsrmDzw at mail.gmail.com>
=?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
><rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>> [..] IPv4 real estate
>
>IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in
>hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better
>policy proposals).
>
>Do not do so.

You are attempting to correct the Wrong Guy my friend.

"Property" is not a term that *I* personally selected.

It was mentioned on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (arin-ppml) this
week that some of the actual court filings in the suit and counter-action
against this company Micfo (which perpetrated the big fraud against ARIN)
explicitly used the word "property" with respect to IPv4 address blocks.
(I not sure who used the term... in may have been Micfo, it may have been
ARIN officials, or it may have been the judge.)

My point is that OTHER PEOPLE are calling it "property".  If you disagree,
you need to take it up with them, not me.

I will say this however...  Given that there is now an active and vibrant
market for IPv4 addresses, it seems a bit silly, and altogether anachronistic
to insist on still NOT calling IP addresses property, even in the current
era.

My only hope is that you will not likewise chastize me for using other
terminiology that I also didn't invent or initially spread, such as
"Dieselgate" etc.

In short, I just work here.  Other peoole at higher pay grades than me get
to decide what things are called.  I'm just going with the flow.


Regards,
rfg