Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)
dogwallah at gmail.com
Sat Jan 26 17:51:55 UTC 2013
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I find the wording of this kinda interesting....
> (i) the numbering resources, subject matter of the present agreement, are not property (real, personal or intellectual);
> (ii) no proprietary right is being transferred in virtue of this agreement to it;
> (iii) it is bestowed with an exclusive right of use of those numbering resources within the ambit of the “need” which it has justified in its application and for no other purpose during the currency of the present agreement;
> (iv) transfer of the number resources is strictly prohibited.
> Point (i) states that IP addresses are not property in any way...
> Points (ii) (iii) and (iv) prohibit various actions on them....
> Is there not a pretty glaring conflict here?
If the addresses are not property in any form (and hence by
implication do not belong to the assignee, AfriNIC or even IANA)
I'm not sure that is implied
, then points 2 - 4 are surely not enforceable, since you can't
enforce rules on something that is not property.
by signing the agreement, you agree to the terms and thus it is
enforceable. It's more like a leasehold, the numbers are allocated
to a RIR who then allocate and assign further downstream. If you
lease a house, you can't sell it because it doesn't belong to you.
> (Similar question I asked a few days ago when I pointed out that under US law IP addressing fails to meet the definition of property and cannot be assigned property rights, as it fails on part 2 of the 3 part test they use).
which law is that?
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
More information about the RPD