Lightly used IP addresses

Owen DeLong owen at
Sun Aug 15 15:33:34 UTC 2010

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush <randy at> 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list