On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the >> registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within >> the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. > > if you think that there’s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the > registry, then please provide a citation...
Hi John, I sell you hosting services using a block of IPs that I advertise to my ISPs. Another end user advertises routes to those same IPs for their services. Whichever of us has the solid registration claim wins the _tortious interference_ case against end-user and his ISPs. Handily. It's almost a cookie-cutter violation. Notably, ARIN is not a party to the case. More, neither plaintiff nor defendant have contracts with each other nor with any mutual third party. The claim is that defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiffs ability to perform his business. The registration is _evidence_ of who interfered with whom. Tortious Interference goes all the way back to the 1600s in England. Its parameters are well established. I expect ARIN counsel can identify additional torts for which the registration likely offers the decisive evidence of guilt. I'd encourage you to take up the matter with him. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> _______________________________________________ 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.
