> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:53 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, George, Wes <wesley.geo...@twcable.com> wrote: >> Those are operational matters, implemented by the staff, governed by the >> board, who is informed by their legal council and staff. That is part of >> the reason why I brought some of the issues to the NANOG community, since >> interaction with ARIN board members and staff is what's necessary to make >> sure the concerns are addressed, and thus it benefits from wider >> discussion. > > Wes - > > I am happy to champion the change that you seek (i.e. will get it reviewed > by legal and brought before the ARIN Board) but still need clarity on what > change you wish to occur - > > A) Implicit binding to the indemnification/warrant disclaimer clauses > (as done by the other RIRs) > > B) Removal of the indemnification & warranty disclaimer clause > > I asked this directly during your NANOG presentation, but you did not > respond > either way. I also noted that your own business customer agreements have > the > same indemnification & non-warranty clauses (as they are common in nearly all > telecommunication and ISP service agreements) - are these now being dropped > by TWC in agreements?
I recall a lengthly discussion about this at the NANOG meeting that occurred after the session. I think there is a very strong emotional thing here where we said to you (which you seem to have forgotten) that option B above would be helpful as it’s already covered by the general registration agreement (which was your assertion). Comparing what you do with Time Warner cable seems like pure hyperbole and an attempt as CEO to inflame community discussion at minimum. - Jared
