What you call extortion others call capitalism.
Either an ip address allocation is property or it isn't. If it is the owner has no duty to give the property away just because someone else might want it. In the second case the only possible cause of action would be against the registrar.
I don't see a duty of care here. There is no general obligation in law to give up an economic interest just to help others. None of the parties involved here are communists.
As for your repeated appeals to senior management, who do you think is more likely to share our values, engineers or managers?
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: michael.dillon@xxxxxx [mailto:michael.dillon@xxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 05:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: IPv4
> If I was the isp in that situation hp has something I want and many
others want. There is absolutely nothing to be achieved by threatening
hp and much to be lost. Even if the threat worked the party that brought
the case and paid for the costs would most likely not get the allocation
anyway.
When one company sues another, they often ask for damages. I am saying
that if, as a result of legacy holders hoarding addresses, ARIN is
unable to allocate addresses to an ISP, then the ISP could claim that
the legacy holder has damaged the ISP and sue for damages.
> Rather than lay out ten million plus on a lawsuit that is unlikely to
achieve the desired result the isp is going to pay hp. The risk of
losing the allocation while it still has relevance is nil.
Now you are claiming that HP will engage in extortion. Seriously, I do
not believe that senior management at HP is aware of this issue. When
they do become aware of it, I strongly doubt that they will plan to
engage in extortion. And when it comes to pricing those addresses that
HP holds, a large ISP currently pays ARIN $18,000 per year for all the
addresses that it needs.
> Do not expect the courts to be as willing to step into this situation
and decide it the way you think it should be decided. US judges are
political appointments. Most are ideologically committed to free market
arguments.
First of all, the courts will only get involved if a lawsuit is
initiated. When I look at all the possible players that might initiate
such a lawsuit, I think that the ISP who fails to get the needed
addresses is most likely. And when I look at all the possible parties
that might be sued, I see that the legacy address holders are in the
weakest position. In fact, HP and other legacy address holders are not
playing by the rules, and people who are committed to free market
arguments are also ususally strongly in favor of playing by the rules.
That's why Enron was not allowed to fade quietly into the sunset.
By the way, the IETF is probably the wrong venue to discuss this issue.
ICANN or ARIN would be a better place to move the discussion to.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf