On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:59 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no >> policy changes" > > Note that RFC 2050 was operative at that time, with language requiring the > recipient to meet the same criteria as when qualifying to receive space; i.e. > Even under your assertions above, legacy holders doing transfers would be > still be subject to needs qualification of the recipient.
Hi John, I don't recall being asked to reference or agree to RFC 2050 in the template I submitted for my legacy block. Doubtless in part because RFC 2050 hadn't yet been written. RFC2050 really isn't informative in the manner you imply. As I recollect the operative procedures of the day, it was: resend the template with the new information which, as an existing registration submitting a template from an authorized source, was honored without further review. Does your recollection of the pre-ARIN administrative procedures for transferring a block of network addresses differ? This is a messy, messy court case if the matter ever comes to a head. Does article 1 section 8 bar the existence of a intangible property that congress hasn't defined? If it can exist, the registration documents and process looked pretty permanent -- exactly as you'd expect for a grant of property. But they didn't directly speak to the question, either for or against. Highfalutin' and late-to-the-game RFCs notwithstanding. But even if legacy addresses are property, does ARIN have a perpetual obligation to _record_ changes to ownership? And provide RDNS for free? But if ARIN obstructs anyone else from providing RDNS, does that unlawfully encroach the property? And if addresses are property, what are the antitrust implications for ARIN asserting ownership of all the addresses it allocated since its inception? Leasehold property is un-American; it was a major driver (beside religion) in the population's original exodus from Europe. Our law tends to view it with suspicion. Messy. Best bet for everyone involved is to arrange for the matter to never come to a head. Let the eventual deployment of IPv6 render it moot. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
