Agreed,
Look at:
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf
Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts
can and do disagree.
On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on
Alright, how about this - let's wait and see what the bankruptcy judge says.
Which firm do you practice for?
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ernie Rubi erne...@cs.fiu.edu wrote:
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property
...@arin.net wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I
see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures
my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him:
Mr. Rubi
Anyone else see anything / know of any odd behavior on the prefix yesterday
afternoon/today?
Here in Miami (NAP) we saw some issues through one of our upstreams and ended
up disabling the BGP session, then re-enabling it with a filter to block said
prefix.
We've since removed the filter and
Good question:
Depends on what kind of address space assignment - if you mean legacy IP space,
then no there is no case law.
Kremen v. ARIN (Northern District of CA) is the only case law out there, but it
is on point only as to 'current' IP space. In Kremen, the district court went
only
OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal power or is the
corporate laws of the State of Virginia?
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can
Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote:
OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal authority or
is it the corporate laws of the State of Virginia?
Mr. Rubi -
ARIN operates the ARIN WHOIS database as part of the mission of
organization in serving
That's the question, and it seemed that the answer started to be formulated in
terms of 'community acquiescence/policy leads to authority' in a previous
email, so I wanted to make sure that was in fact the response to the question,
at least in part.
ARIN will likely argue that 'this was done
Um, I think that's what ARIN means when they say changing the registrant on a
block from Entity A to Entity B means. That's effectively 'reclaiming'.
As I understand it, I think they also contend that the 'community' could say to
ARIN 'take back X legacy block' and that ARIN would have no
I don't think that's ARIN's position (someone correct me if I'm wrong),
especially if you mean to say they having the same 'rights' as RIRs to
transfer/assign/lease/delegate/port those IP numbers. Using the numbers you
have is another thing entirely.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
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
Don't take this the wrong way but vote with your feet if you don't like it.
Taken to its logical conclusion this is the no one person or corporate entity
is 'neutral' rationale/argument - so what? For-profit business organizations
(both VZ and TMRK are publicly traded for-profit with
Um, down for everyone reports it as down for everyone.
Any news as to what may be causing it?
Ernesto M. Rubi
Sr. Network Engineer
AMPATH/CIARA
Florida International Univ, Miami
Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu
Cell: 786-282-6783
I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way.
Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want network
engineers to associate with IP addresses.
The real value is in routing; is the party line.
STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: this
Hi all,
Anyone from AS29748 with peering auth, can you contact me off list?
Thanks,
Ernesto M. Rubi
Sr. Network Engineer
AMPATH/CIARA
Florida International Univ, Miami
Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu
Illegal control = Conversion = at least a tort, but could also be a crime.
On Apr 29, 2010, at 10:05 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:48 -0400, David Krider wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:47 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Surely even at DeVry they teach that if you refuse
Step #2.
Retain legal counsel or talk to general counsel.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Adcock, Matt [HISNA] wrote:
Don't deploy the equipment, demand a refund, and report the reseller to
Cisco. I agree completely with Brian - find a good Cisco partner and stick
with them. Also, you
I agree - Although this isn't legal advice and I'm not a lawyer:
It amends 18 U.S.C. §2703 which is entitled Required Disclosure of
Customer Communications or Records which refers to providers, not
home users...
Better question:
1) Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
Hi folks,
So I'm a network engineer and a law student and have decided to write
a short note for one of our International Law classes based on UDRP
and ICANN issues.
I'd like to request input from the community as to what they see as
the advantages and disadvantages for the UDRP process
Hi folks, just musing...
From an ops perspective, wonder just how much traffic caused:
This morning, our engineers sounded the alarms ... and we have
installed a digital version of a traffic cop. We enacted stopgaps that
we planned for last night. We had hoped we didn't have to.
--Jeff
20 matches
Mail list logo
