[members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian Feurdean
ripe-ncc at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Tue Oct 4 02:05:27 CEST 2016
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 00:08, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > The legacy space ISN'T managed by the RIRs. Of course, not managed, "administered" http://www.iana.net/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml#note1 Or is it still "managed" ? https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/legacy-resources/erx I don't think this changes the situation very much if the legacy ressources cannot be considered property. > > If the answer is "YES", then that would be for me a good starting point > > into accepting the current situation. > > I guess an e-mail message, in some parts of the (non-virtual) world might > be considered as "good documentation" -- or a contract...? A contract does not create ownership in itself. As for an e-mail being considered a contract - the outcome may be pretty random. Why exactly wasn't IP space considered as a RTU (right to use) ? It seems that ARIN's position goes in that direction. That would make legacy space quite similar to non-legacy one. > > But on the other side, it seems that not all RIRs have such a "friendly" > > stance towards LRHs (towards LEGACY in general). > > Where did you get that idea? pointers...? https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/rsa_faq.html#legacy https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/rsa.pdf http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg87789.html > It's a bit different. "Carlos" is not a unique identifier. Even my four > names are not a unique identifier (roughly it is because my surname is > really rare...). Neither is 8.8.8.8 (just an example of legacy IP address). > Sure. Again, i don't think the IP space distributed by IANA falls > under intellectual property... Intangibe, definitely yes. > A dutch court, a portuguese court and a romanian court might decide > differently on the same case... which law should apply? The recipient > coutry's law and/or IANA's? Most likely any jurisdiction that could enforce its decision on RIPE NCC. That should normally include at least the Dutch one. Probably a few select others to some degree (or not). Back to where we started, why such a friendly stance towards all holders of "space initally distributed before the RIR system", espcially the non-collaborative ones ? Choice (if yes, why) ? Well-defined legal obligation (doesn't look like this, at least in IANA's own legal system). Fear of litigation ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]