[47677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Thu May 9 18:47:07 2002
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <daveid@panix.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:45:35 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.44.0205091808190.4576-100000@panix3.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <20020509224559.AAA4693@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 9 May 2002 18:16:52 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
>Just because policies are in place that suggest an assignment=
may or may
>not be justified is wholly irrelevant to whether or not that=
assignment
>takes place (or in the case of the original thread, stays in=
place). ARIN
>is not in the business of saying "do" or "do not".
=09Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance=
with its
policies as a condition of IP address allocations. Third parties=
can make
reasonable arguments that they have standing to litigate these=
requirements
on the grounds that the requirements were intended to benefit the=
public in
general and hence they are intended beneficiaries.
=09IANAL, but this argument was created by lawyers and has=
impressed lawyers.
As I said though, I know of no case where it was actually=
litigated. The
threat has always been enough to obtain more reasonable=
reassignment
policies.
=09DS
