[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

>>So, MIT needs all this IP space to run a REALLLLLLLY big ISP at some 
>>time in the future?  That makes sense.  
> 
> 
> That's _entirely_ up to MIT. That's the point that you seem to not get.  
> That's what it means to have unencumbered rights.
>

How about that!  If you Google "red herring", you will, amazingly, find 
your description of MIT's ISP plans.  I stand corrected.

> 
>>I must have missed that clause about IP space in my constitutional
>>studies.
> 
> 
> I'm not certain about the formulation Mr. Ryan was referring to.  
> However, I'd guess the government probably can't pass an ex-post-facto
> law to remove a permanent license previously granted by the government.  
> But it was Mr. Ryan that noted this is probably not constitutional, not
> me. Why it isn't constitutional is not really my argument or my
> expertise.

It is really handy that you conveniently ignore the 
plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face benefit of per-IP ARIN fees in your 
responses, choosing rather to argue in favor of some dumb congressional 
decision made last century that did not take into account the growth of 
the Internet.  How could those visionaries in Congress who now take 
credit for the Internet not have seen that one coming?

So you are now saying that the consitutional argument is not really your 
argument?   I guess that means you don't have to defend it, but you can 
still quote it when it serves your purpose?  I get it now.