Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis

A new paper on ownership rights in IPv4 addresses has been drafted; it is posted here. Author Ernesto Rubi is a J.D. candidate at Florida International University School of Law. The paper explores the legal framework (or rather, the lack thereof) surrounding IP addresses. The depletion of the IPv4 free pool will, the author contends, intensify arguments about ownership interests in ipv4 address blocks. He concludes that “the concept of IP number ‘ownership’ or claim of right may be inevitable.”

Congress should heed U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's observations on DNS censorship

Early yesterday the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released its 324 page annual report to Congress. The lead story in the press has been an April 2010 BGP incident. While the underlying technical problems of BGP are well known and similar situations occur frequently, the incident is being painted ominously as a routing “hijack” that affected traffic to U.S. government websites – something which China Telecom is denying and which Renesys and Arbor Networks have done a good job of refuting. Another incident in the report, not mentioned in the press, was the March 2010 tampering of DNS responses from an i-root instance located in Beijing, which resulted in some Internet users from outside of China being blocked from reaching certain websites that are censored inside of China. Congress, which is now considering the Combatting Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (COICA), would be well served to read how using the DNS to implement a domestic policy agenda is a bad idea.

New OECD study on role of ISPs in fighting infected machines on the Internet

The OECD just published a study that presents new insights into the role of Internet Service Providers in fighting the millions of infected machines that are currrently plaguing the Internet. The study discovered a remarkably concentrated patterns – just 50 ISPs account for about 50% of all infected machines worldwide. It also statistically determines some of underlying factors that explain why some ISPs perform better than others.

Outsourcing censorship: ICANN, Inc. insists on it!

ICANN’s staff is trying to reject key consensus recommendations regarding the censorship of new top level domains. The staff's “explanatory memo,” which tells us why it is trying to discard the decisions of a Cross-community Working Group, show a complete lack of interest in the freedom of expression implications of the new gTLD objection process. It focuses instead on how to lower legal and financial risks to the corporation. Outsourcing the decision to censor new top level domains to a “dispute resolution service provider” is considered by ICANN's staff to be a very important part of a “risk mitigation strategy.” “Without outside dispute resolution,” the staff wrote, “ICANN would have to re-evaluate risks and program costs overall.” What a startling admission! A conference call tomorrow (Monday, November 15) may be able to alter this. But the staff position fuels many of the concerns IGP and others have expressed regarding ICANN, Inc.’s status as an international institution. ICANN Inc.’s policy process looks out for its own interest as a corporation first and foremost, and lacks accountability because there is no requirement to follow the results of its own vaunted bottom-up processes.

A Non-profit Constituency? Or Trademark lawyers engaged in deceptive and confusing labeling?

A couple of trademark lawyers who work for nonprofits are trying to form a “new” constituency as part of the GNSO’s Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. They have filed a Notice of Intent to form what they call the “Not -for-Profit Organizations Constituency” (NPOC). That’s an interesting name for a couple of trademark lawyers to be attaching to their effort. Trademark law and policy is all about protecting consumers from confusing and deceptive labels. But this initiative seems designed to foster confusion. There is already a Noncommercial User Constituency in ICANN’s GNSO. How is any nonprofit organization that wanders into ICANN supposed to make sense of the difference between a “Not for profit organization constituency” and a “Noncommercial Users Constituency” – especially when their eligibility descriptions sound exactly the same? What’s going on here? We will tell you…

ARIN grants Comcast IPv4 “mega-allocation”

If you listen to the buzz, the day of ipv4 exhaustion is nigh and operators need to be migrating en masse to ipv6. The problem with the v6 evangelism is that it doesn't take into account the complex incentives at work in the adoption of ipv6. A recent allocation by ARIN of a /9 block, or approximately 8.4 million addresses, to U.S.-based network operator Comcast highlights this.

ICANN builds out its root server empire

ICANN has increased its number of root server instances by almost a factor of 10 since early 2010, according to data provided by root-servers.org. 40 instances of the ICANN-operated “L” root have been deployed; 20 of them were deployed in October alone. The “L” root now appears in every UN region (Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania). Why is ICANN on an insfrastructure deployment tear? There may be a variety of reasons.

Dutch Police Inflates Bredolab Botnet Success by Factor of Ten, and Then Some

Last week, the Dutch police managed to shut down the “Bredolab” botnet. At least, that is what they claimed during the worldwide media coverage that followed. A few days later, while the police was still basking in the praise for its success, the botnet was resurrected. Embarrassing? Yes. Surprising? Not really. It highlights a fundamental misunderstanding about the fight against botnets. Contrary to what the Dutch police claimed and many people think, law enforcement cannot shut down botnets. It is important to understand why and what the implications are of this sobering thought.