On 6/1/2015 1:09 PM, William Herrin wrote:
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.
But in the case at hand, holder X writes a letter to non-holder Y saying
"sure, I'm ok with you advertising these addresses for the next year"
If holder X then sues non-holder Y and presents the ARIN registration as
evidence, that letter isn't going to make this a "cookie-cutter
violation" any more. And further, in the case at hand, holder X
*doesn't* sue non-holder Y... instead a bunch of relying parties,
including law enforcement, just can't see who really has the legal use
of the addresses, because ARIN refused to update their records because
some arbitrary policies weren't followed.
Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
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.
