Re: And so it ends...

[Ernie Rubi <ernesto () cs fiu edu>]

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: ernesto () cs fiu edu
Cell: 786-282-6783