3 ms·

That organization did not own those addresses. In the most generous interpretation of the situation, they were administrative custodians to the good usage of th

That organization did not own those addresses. In the most generous interpretation of the situation, they were administrative custodians to the good usage of those addresses. Reselling them to a for-profit company was definitely not what was intended by anyone and directly contradicts their mission as custodians. Those addresses were that of the global radioamateur community and no one else's. That's why i made a comparison with .org. ORG TLD was created exclusively by and for non-profits, so it was a scandal when some execs conspired against the general public to resell it and induce more costs for everyone. Likewise, it's a scandal that when you need/want to build DIY radio Internet setup, your addresses which were reserved for that usage don't exist anymore, as they have been appropriated by Amazon. Please note that this story would be less of a scandal if the community had been consulted on how much of the IP range to sell (retaining some for legit usage), and/or if that money benefited the community and not some greedy capitalist execs, and/or if they had been reattributed through normal channels (RIPE and other RIRs) and not commercialized, none of which is true.

drmpeg 5y ago
Amateur radio still has 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Not exactly a shortage. Also, they are giving back to the community. The largest grant so far was $1,620,000 to save a radio telescope for the MIT Amateur Radio club. https://www.ampr.org/grants/ https://www.ampr.org/grants/
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Not exactly a shortage, no. But giving away an entire range without giving ample time (think months/years) for network operators to comply is a bit harsh. Thanks for the link to their grants. It's good to see they're doing something useful with the money and it's not a case of outright corruption. Although one could argue a club from one of the biggest colleges in the global north may have more suited avenues for funding, i'm glad to see smaller projects in there as well. To be fair, if the goal was to raise money for the community, would it not have been wiser to rent the IP space, or to setup a proper charitable auction? The IPv4 addresses are bound to go up in value in the coming years, now that major RIRs have given away all the remaining blocks, so that might have brought more revenue.
kmbfjr 5y ago
They very much did own them, you need to look at the history of ampr.org, who sits on the board and “who” applied for the /8. These did not belong to amateur radio, TAPR, the ARRL or anyone but this organization.
- lkbm 5y ago
  Looks like the answer you're suggesting is Dr. Hank Magnuski[0]? He seems like an important and impressive fellow, but I'm not sure how that addresses the idea of ownership here. Most likely we have different understandings of how ownership/stewardship of ipv4 addresses works. My take is "I don't know how it works", but I think the people further up thread believe it's not about ownership, but merely the right to administer on the understanding that it's done for the public good, or something like that. If you have a concise resource that summarizes how it works that would likely do more to convince us than telling us to research ampr.org. [0] https://www.ampr.org/faq/ https://www.ampr.org/faq/
- southerntofu 5y ago
  So, take my words with a grain of salt because i'm not a member of those communities. From reading the previous thread on HN (which i linked in my parent comment), even the people who think the sale is a good thing agree that it was a rather shady deal where it wasn't very clear that a single entity should feel entitled to "own" this IP range. If you have links with more information going one way or another, historical internet politics is always something i have time for reading, and i think i'm not the only one around here! :)

drmpeg 5y ago

Amateur radio still has 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Not exactly a shortage. Also, they are giving back to the community. The largest grant so far was $1,620,000 to save a radio telescope for the MIT Amateur Radio club. https://www.ampr.org/grants/ https://www.ampr.org/grants/

southerntofu 5y ago
Not exactly a shortage, no. But giving away an entire range without giving ample time (think months/years) for network operators to comply is a bit harsh. Thanks for the link to their grants. It's good to see they're doing something useful with the money and it's not a case of outright corruption. Although one could argue a club from one of the biggest colleges in the global north may have more suited avenues for funding, i'm glad to see smaller projects in there as well. To be fair, if the goal was to raise money for the community, would it not have been wiser to rent the IP space, or to setup a proper charitable auction? The IPv4 addresses are bound to go up in value in the coming years, now that major RIRs have given away all the remaining blocks, so that might have brought more revenue.

kmbfjr 5y ago

They very much did own them, you need to look at the history of ampr.org, who sits on the board and “who” applied for the /8. These did not belong to amateur radio, TAPR, the ARRL or anyone but this organization.

lkbm 5y ago
Looks like the answer you're suggesting is Dr. Hank Magnuski[0]? He seems like an important and impressive fellow, but I'm not sure how that addresses the idea of ownership here. Most likely we have different understandings of how ownership/stewardship of ipv4 addresses works. My take is "I don't know how it works", but I think the people further up thread believe it's not about ownership, but merely the right to administer on the understanding that it's done for the public good, or something like that. If you have a concise resource that summarizes how it works that would likely do more to convince us than telling us to research ampr.org. [0] https://www.ampr.org/faq/ https://www.ampr.org/faq/
southerntofu 5y ago
So, take my words with a grain of salt because i'm not a member of those communities. From reading the previous thread on HN (which i linked in my parent comment), even the people who think the sale is a good thing agree that it was a rather shady deal where it wasn't very clear that a single entity should feel entitled to "own" this IP range. If you have links with more information going one way or another, historical internet politics is always something i have time for reading, and i think i'm not the only one around here! :)