[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

[John Springer]

I am replying to Dan AND David, but I am going to pick on one of David's 
statements down below.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, David Farmer wrote:

>
>
> On 6/18/12 11:29 CDT, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> I know this proposal has been thoroughly discussed, so I'm not trying to
>> pile onto comments already made. This note is simply to explain my
>> reasoning as an AC member why I will be voting against this proposal as
>> written.

Quite a bit of game left on this one, but I agree with you so far. 
Opposed.

> As currently written I agree with you.  But I think Scott's suggested changes 
> fixes most of my objections and I believe this proposal could lead to useful 
> policy with those changes.

<snip Dan>
<snip David>

> While I wish there were no distinctions between legacy and non-legacy 
> resources, realistically I think there are at least a few practical 
> distinctions.  As has been pointed out by several people in the discussion, 
> the contract issue is a big distinction, and some feel that is only practical 
> distinction.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, at least partially because there is no contract,
>
>
> I feel 
> there is another distinction, there is no mechanism in policy or contract to 
> recover address space from defunct organizations with legacy resources, 
> unless someone else commits resource fraud and start using them.


IANAL, like a lot of other folks on this list with that property, but I do 
have to ask the question re: the above emphasized statement: Really?

I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for which 
there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I knew 
that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration and 
assent by both parties.

I do understand that there has been considerable assertion that there is 
no contract with "legacy" address resource holders, but has this been 
stipulated or in some other way achieved reality?

The exchange of consideration that I have always imputed is: I will give 
you these numbers -> I will go build the Intertubez. And how could there 
not be assent? If that _IS_ the bargain, I think the pioneers get a 
permanent let pass on unwanted changes to the status quo.

If, on the other hand, there was, in fact, no valid exchange of 
consideration or mutual assent, do these folks have any enduring rights 
of use at all? In particular, I think they or their agents don't get to 
expand their original bargain to preserve a potential windfall. Invisible 
hand be damned.

Note well: I am not suggesting an assault on the status of legacy numbers 
or their holders, but if proposers be proposing changes to policy toward 
these folks, perhaps the solidification of first principles may be in 
order.

Is this even answerable?

I don't think I gave any advice here.

John "Not a Lawyer" Springer

My opinions only, not my employer's.