[ncc-services-wg] Lawsuits and recovering lost IP addresses

Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> Not sure which WG to post this so I'll try here.

My 1st minute feeling would be ncc-services...

> Hypothetical case: Suppose there is an ISP that has a /16.  They never
> informed their customers that the assigned PA address space has to be
> returned once they disconnect from their service (see
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#pa_pi for how it should
> be done, but wasn't in the past).

I think we need to be a bit more specific, in particular when this
relates to pretty old address blocks.

Some of those older allocations are (formally) tagged as PI (typical
examples are the relics of the last-resort blocks which in some cases
were managed by ISPs), others are tagged as UNSPECIFIED.

My reading is that
- in the PI case the assignments remain valid as long as the _assignee_
      fulfills the _original_ assignment criteria,
-for the UNSPECIFIED case it was (and still is) a decision made by the
holder of the allocation whether the assignemnts get tagged as PI or PA.

E.g. in our case we still use the old UNSPECIFIED block, but we always
alert the assignee about the condition that the assignment is only valid
as long as they receive connectivity from us. And the assignments get
tagged as PA. (With a very few exception where the assignments date back
to 1993 and 1994.)

Still another case would be PI applications and assignemnts which got
submitted by way of an ISP/LIR. I don't think that it would technically
make sense in this case to require the assignee to return the addresses
upon termination of whatever contract the agreed on (returned to the
RIR!!), albeit it would formally be possible, I guess. This would
probably be close to "charging for addresses", unless it is a very small
amount of maoney as an administrative fee.

> Now when they see all sorts of announcements of /24s and /22s from their
> block and they try to recover these lost IPs (contacting the ex-customer
> or their usptreams to terminate announcement), they are threatened with
> lawsuits that deletion of the IPs will cause irrepairable harm to the
> ex-customer and the fact that the LIR never informed the customer of PA
> recovery therefore entitles them to keep the IPs - forever - or for
> however long they wish.
> 
> I don't want this to be a long thread on the pros and cons and what
> should or shouldn't be done.  What I am *specifically* looking for is
> actual lawsuits and court cases that have taken place in the RIPE sphere
> in this area and what the outcome of those lawsuits were.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hank

Wilfried.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Wilfried Woeber                 : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
 UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
 Universitaetsstrasse 7          : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe  : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~