Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process? >> No > > so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process > which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level playing > field?" > >> Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that >> all address holders are the same basic terms to the extent practical) > > so, on the one hand, you claim legacy holders have no property rights. > yet you ask they sign an lrsa wherein they relinquish the rights you say > they don't have. > A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no matter how many times you repeat yourself. > amazing. i wonder if that could be construed as an acknowledgement that > they actually have those rights. > > when did the lawyers and the twisty mentality get control? > > randy, heading for sleep > > -- > > p.s. apologies to folk for any suggestion they might have to dirty > themselves by joining the ppml list
