[128736] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Aug 15 11:36:28 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2lj88kpe5.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:33:34 -0400
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>,
North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
>> No
>=20
> so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process
> which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level =
playing
> field?"
>=20
>> Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that=20=
>> all address holders are the same basic terms to the extent practical) =
=20
>=20
> so, on the one hand, you claim legacy holders have no property rights.
> yet you ask they sign an lrsa wherein they relinquish the rights you =
say
> they don't have.
>=20
A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never =
had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no =
matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> amazing. i wonder if that could be construed as an acknowledgement =
that
> they actually have those rights.
>=20
> when did the lawyers and the twisty mentality get control?
>=20
> randy, heading for sleep
>=20
> --
>=20
> p.s. apologies to folk for any suggestion they might have to dirty
> themselves by joining the ppml list
