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

[Dean Anderson]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> At 8:43 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >Perhaps I can rephrase the question into two clear parts:
> >
> >1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of
> >ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"
> 
> I believe this has been covered in detail:  Yes, to the effect
> that there's no legal obligation.  This doesn't mean ARIN
> doesn't have any obligation here, only that it is based on
> the direction of the community more than any matter of law.

A statement "to the effect of" means to imply something. That is not a
clear definitive or formal statement.

> >2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF
> >accurate?"
> 
> Stephen actually extracted from transcript of the last ARIN meeting in
> San Juan, and it appears to be accurate from my quick review.

Stephen seems to have extracted only the first half of the statement
from the Meeting. Stephen's summary doesn't appear accurate from my
review. In that statement, the lawyer goes on and states that he isn't
sure of the constitutionality of what's being proposing, and states that
he is still exploring legal theories. Since he hasn't even decided on a
legal theory, it seems pretty clear he hasn't made any definitive
statement on the subject. Quoting only the first half of his statement
and ignoring the significant latter part is quoting the statement wildly
out of context.



> >I think there is a strong argument, both morally and
> >legally, that those prior assignments represent obligations on ARIN,
> >from ARIN's inception, and that ARIN is compelled to continue to honor
> >the terms of those assignments.  I'd say that's a legal issue, even if
> >there isn't an active lawsuit on the subject.
> 
> ARIN's counsel seems to disagree on that topic, if by "honor the terms
> of those assignments" you actually mean "provide free services".  

There is a tremendous difference between "seems" and "does". I'm asking
for a clear statement.  Something so clear that one can launch a suit
for declaritive judgement on the issue.


> Note - I was the one who asked the question to counsel, specifically
> to get formally answered, since it has been asked from time to time,
> and it's relevant to members and AC in their deliberations on policy.

Where is the formal answer?  Informal verbal statements don't qualify as
a formal answer.

> If the community determines that ARIN should provide such services to
> legacy holders and directs accordingly, then providing those services
> is an obligation.  That's been to situation to date, and there is no
> reason that it needs to change.

Actually, there does seem to be a change in view on the Board of
Trustees.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000