On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:30 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:15 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense >> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks >> are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't >> help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in >> no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. > > That’s incorrect - we’ve actively welcomed clarity in such proceedings.
And have miraculously avoided getting it. >> Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each case >> could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. > > That is also incorrect. > > A ruling on the particular question has not occurred because other parties > have > accepted orders which acknowledge that a transfer will only taking place in > accordance with the community policy, i.e. it is ultimately on those > asserting the > right to do otherwise (not ARIN) to pursue matters to their desired outcome. Like when Microsoft was bribed with an offer to accept transfer of millions addresses under the LRSA despite the plain policy language requiring that it be done under the classic RSA. You guys stretch the policies 'till they scream if your opponents are willing to stop short of requiring a judge to rule on the property question. 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.
