Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources
I've been looking at policy proposal 2007-08 about transfering addresses between LIRs directly. I'm not sure what the current status of this is, but it is one of a family of similar proposals before ARIN and APNIC. In the other RIRs, people who support this type of transfer proposal seem to consider it to be the first step towards trading in IP address contracts, i.e. creating a market for buying and selling contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I've been reading through the MiFID directives and some of the English language material covering MiFID, trying to figure out whether these IP address contracts would fall under the MiFID guidelines. Of course, EU guidelines are not the same as laws, and the laws in this area enable a regulator, who then goes on to make regulations. I have come to the conclusion that the Dutch law is the one that is most likely to currently apply, since RIPE is run out of Amsterdam and since the policy proposal calls on RIPE to register these transfers. My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have a look at the text of the Dutch law here <http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/0490_Wet_financiele_dienstverlening_Wfd.htm> to see if the definitions cover the sale of contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I'm pretty sure that "effect" in Article 1(i) defines what is a "security" but since MiFID has a lot of text about which kind of organizations and activities are covered by the new rules, I suspect you would need to read more than the definition of this one term. Since many people seem to have a vision of an IP address trading market that functions similar to a securities market like Euronext, I think that we need some proper legal guidance that tells us the boundaries for RIPE policy. If we step over those boundaries, then the MiFID rules will apply to everything that we do with IPv4 address allocations. --Michael Dillon
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote: [..]
My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have a look at the text of the Dutch law here <http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/0490_Wet_financiele_dienstverlening_Wfd.htm>
"Vervallen m.i.v. 1 januari 2007" aka "Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007" The following one is apparently still valid though: http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm There is no mention at all about virtual property or the 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is a bankaccount number etc. We have this IANA&RIR system in place and the only reason that it works is that the largest amount of ISP's who are on this thing that we call "The Internet" find that the IP numbers they are giving out are the ones they use. Anybody though can simply take whatever number they want and given that enough ISPs start talking to it, that will simply work, but they have to convince the largest amount to do that though. A number can't be a property, thus there is nothing that law can do against handling in IP addresses. Also note that that 'trading' in IP addresses and other resources already happens for a long long time, eg when company A buys company B solely for the addresses and ASN's etc etc. Nice example from ebay: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK2594 Greets, Jeroen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 11, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote: [..]
My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have a look at the text of the Dutch law here <http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/ 0490_Wet_financiele_dienstverlening_Wfd.htm>
"Vervallen m.i.v. 1 januari 2007"
aka
"Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007"
The following one is apparently still valid though: http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm
There is no mention at all about virtual property or the 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is a bankaccount number etc.
We have this IANA&RIR system in place and the only reason that it works is that the largest amount of ISP's who are on this thing that we call "The Internet" find that the IP numbers they are giving out are the ones they use. Anybody though can simply take whatever number they want and given that enough ISPs start talking to it, that will simply work, but they have to convince the largest amount to do that though.
A number can't be a property --> there is nothing that law can do against handling in IP addresses.
Regardless of what one thinks about the first proposition, the second does not follow. There are a number of countries in which certain uses of certain numbers is forbidden, and punishable under law. TV
Also note that that 'trading' in IP addresses and other resources already happens for a long long time, eg when company A buys company B solely for the addresses and ASN's etc etc.
Nice example from ebay: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK2594
Greets, Jeroen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFH1w70UHTO4sHEFsERAmHUAKCI/WRrEatEd57LIkeAOLgWg8BZ9wCfWCHy gjVrzy+Qi1fVaVr5QYHlCvM= =ty3U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007"
The following one is apparently still valid though: http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm
Yes, the little details are important.
There is no mention at all about virtual property or the 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is a bankaccount number etc.
Nobody has seriously suggested that IP addresses are property or that transfer policies would change the ownership of IP addresses. Instead, people are talking about buying and selling contracts which give the right to use a specific IP address allocation. This is a lot like a commodities contract, for instance you can buy a contract for the delivery of a ton of copper, and then sell that contract to somebody else. You never actually own a ton of copper because you are buying and selling contracts. There are many varieties of contract like this, usually called derivatives (except for insurance and re-insurance). All of these contracts are covered by the MiFID rules and are regulated by national regulators such as the FAS in the UK. So why am I saying all this? To point out that somewhere, there is a limit which we cannot cross, or else we will discover that RIPE activities will become regulated by some governmental body like the Euronext Regulator Committee. Before we go too far down this direction, we should find out what those limits are. Or disallow privately negotiated transfers entirely and require all transfers to be subject to RIPE approval based on the same technical justifications as all RIPE allocations.
Anybody though can simply take whatever number they want and given that enough ISPs start talking to it, that will simply work, but they have to convince the largest amount to do that though.
I would rather see people do this than create a regulated market for IP address contracts. The fact is that most regional ISPs don't need full Internet connectivity with the entire world in order to satisfy their customers. If a European ISP started to use addresses in 126/8, they probably have enough peering relationships in place to succeed. A few Japanese cable users will complain that they can't reach European sites, but in Japan most users will never notice the difference either.
Also note that that 'trading' in IP addresses and other resources already happens for a long long time, eg when company A buys company B solely for the addresses and ASN's etc etc.
Generally there are network assets transferred at the same time and the network justifies the transfer of the addresses.
Nice example from ebay: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK2594
That's not ebay, that is Spamhaus. And the page contains no reference to ebay at all. Also, it shows a USA address which means that ARIN's policy applies and they won't accept a transfer without justfication for the address allocation. Basically, the participants in RIPE are not lawyers and I believe that we need some expert advice from lawyers who are familiar with MiFID and the regulation of financial markets in Holland, where RIPE is based. --Michael Dillon
participants (3)
-
Jeroen Massar -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Tom Vest