Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| be prepared to defend yourself in court(s) in any number of
| jurisdictions.
Against whom exactly would he be defending? Presumably the litigation would
be initiated by someone who had a financial stake in the matter. Are you
acknowledging that the current address rental model exists for profit rather
than as a solution to the technical problem of address & routing table slot
consumption?
| You should check w/ the RIRs on their role/position
| wrt legal precident on address/prefix ownership.
Umm, wouldn't they (at least some of them) be a bit biased since it is
additional revenue that they might want for themselves?
| You should
| have the ISOC/IETF legal team review the creation of property rights
| by the WG chairs and the IESG.
How do these allocations create property rights any more than the original
IPv4 allocations used before the rental model was introduced?
| Its not going to be easy and its
| not clear the effort justifies the exposure, at least to me.
It is true that these days it is possible to cook up a legal storm about
almost anything. What is the true reason for doing so in this case?
| If you do this, I will have to rethink my use of IPv6 as tainted
| goods.
I think a lot of folks will rethink their use of IPv6 if they can't get
permanent address space.
| The IETF should stick to -PROTOCOL- development, not create
| property rights to be fought over in courts.
But the IETF has already (at least indirectly) created property rights--and
very valuable ones--for the registries and ISPs who rent addresses. A rental
property is still a property. Your complaint seems to be with property rights
for end users, not with property rights in general.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
