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

In that case the RIRs will need to file amicus briefs in more than one litigation across several countries to make this point and avoid precedents being set.  Not just in a tin pot dictatorship or two.

--srs

________________________________
From: Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Ronald F. Guilmette; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

On Sat, May 18, 2019, 3:44 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com<mailto:ops.lists at gmail.com>> wrote:
If it weren't effectively property there wouldn't be firms listing large blocks of v4 space as an asset while going out of business, and there wouldn't be brokers specializing in acquiring and reselling this space.

If someone can sell something others may want to buy, it doesn't mean that what's being sold and bought is a property.  There are people who are paying for some stars to have certain particular names in arbitrary private databases.  "star-registration dot com" and such.  IP addresses are essentially the very same thing.

--
Töma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190518/8ce9f55b/attachment.html>