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

[David Farmer]

On 6/18/12 18:47 CDT, John Springer wrote:
> 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.

OK you got me, I misspoke or was speaking to loosely; Yes, I agree there 
are informal agreements, not written agreements, I made much the same 
point over the weekend.

> 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.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================