Lightly used IP addresses
owen at delong.com
Sun Aug 15 10:33:34 CDT 2010
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
> 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
>> 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
More information about the NANOG