The first presentation at the Computer Law World Conference was by Ray Plzak & Steve Ryan, from the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), on the Legal and Policy Aspects of Internet Number Resources.
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) are responsible for the allocation and management of IP addresses in Canada, the United States, and several islands in the Caribbean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean. ARIN views the allocation of numbers as a service, and does not accept any conception of an allocation as a property right. Interestingly, Steve Ryan (General Counsel) noted that this view is likely to be tested if and when they are sued as a result of withdrawing or refusing an allocation.
Steve Ryan stated that ARIN do not consider themselves the 'police of the internet', but they do consider themselves 'the good stewards' of the internet. This means that they are responsible for refusing or withdrawing service to, for example, spammers. I asked Steve what sort of safeguards, rights of review, or other procedural rights apply to their decisions. Steve responded that decisions were subject to tribunal arbitration (in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I believe), and that the tribunal would apply standards on a literal construction of the contract. The decision of the tribunal is binding, and there is no right of further appeal. To date, there have been no disputes that have been taken to arbitration.
Typically, ARIN will refuse or withdraw allocations on the basis of criminal decisions made against the applicant. Sometimes (about 10 times so far), withdrawals or refusals of service are made on the basis of technical evidence of bad behaviour, without successful criminal prosecutions. In these cases, ARIN typically communicates with the legal representative of the applicant, and they have never proceeded to arbitration (which would require them to present themselves within the jurisdiction).
Given the importance of IP allocations, ARIN are arguably providing a public service. If ARIN were a public administrative body, their decisions would be subject to natural justice. Because they are a private (nonprofit) corporation, the rules are contained in the contract. While there doesn't seem to be any evidence of unfair behaviour by ARIN, it is interesting to note IP allocation as another source of private regulation. The standards applied by ARIN in its policies may sometimes require a judgment to be made by ARIN on the likelihood that an applicant is behaving criminally (or worse, wrongly), without the safeguards of criminal process (evidence, burden of proof, rights of appeal, etc). It is encouraging, however, that ARIN seem to take internal governance seriously, and are committed to transparent decision making.