[arin-ppml] nonsense about unrealized awareness from legacy resource holders

[Jo Rhett]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, at 11:03 AM, John Santos wrote:
> What is poppycock is this ignorant post.

That's a directed insult which is a violation of the rules, and really not appropriate in discussion.

> On 4/13/2022 12:51 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> The DMV is a government agency and the public roads belong to the government. 
> ARIN is NOT a government agency, and the Internet is, for the most part, owned 
> by common carriers in private business.

During the time in question when legacy resources without a contract were given, the Internet was a government project and those resources were government property. While commercial use of the NSFNet was rampant, it was explicitly illegal until 1992 when NSFNet stopped being funded directly from the government.

> When my company was granted its Class C, I wrote the letter to the InterNIC 
> and the response was addressed to my, but the Class C was granted to my 
> company, not to me, and there is no way it is my personal property.

InterNIC? Are you certain you aren't confusing your domain name with your IP allocation?

Either way, go read your request form, which made it abundantly clear that it was an assignment for use, and not property. Also read Jon's statement on this matter which make it explicitly clear.  I don't have a reference handy, but if I recall his works were "the question of rights and ownership questions are inappropriate, it is a matter of service"

> It wasn't the back of an envelope, it was a business letter, and of 
> course it constitutes a binding contract.  There was nothing about it being for a 
> limited duration. > Perpetual contracts and licenses are not uncommon

By the time the InterNIC existed (1993) the need for legal language had become clear. The InternNIC never issued a single assignment without a legal clause. Go read your forms again, and you'll find there is absolutely no binding contract there, no perpetual anything. If you claim to have received a binding, perpetual contract then post it.

> There were several decades between when the Internet consisted of ARPA, a half 
> dozen computer and communications companies, and a dozen colleges,

It never existed of that. You are wildly merging ARPAnet, NSFnet, BBN etc. Those were completely different networks owned by completely different agencies, with no more connection than offline UUCP relay in the early 1990s.

> When I got our Class C in 1993, commercial use was definitely legal, and there was no RSA.

Yes, it was legalized in 1992 and by that time every assignment had clear language. Nobody from your era can make any claim that their assignment was not clearly delineated.

> No one has the right to impose a contract on another party without mutual consent.

You signed the letter consenting to the terms to receive the assignment. Again, go read your form.

>> Nobody I worked with in the days before the 24 months clause is still alive.

> Despite the most strenuous efforts of the Covidiots, I have every intention of remaining alive for several more decades.


You aren't one of the people I worked with. If you got your first taste of the Internet in 1993 (like most commercial entities) then you were likely in elementary school during the period that anyone could claim (wrongfuflly) that the terms of their assignment was ambiguous. Further, you have repeatedly referred to your signed contract in a year in which it absolutely had those terms, so you are not one of the people being referenced.

But even had you been around, you're way too young to be relevant to my post. I lived in Centerville, VA and could walk to Jon's office. By the 1990s I was living and working in Crystal/Pentagon City, VA  in the NAVSEA part of milnet. I was out in Herndon on a regular basis, back when the Internic was two mini tower computers sitting on a shelf in a rack in Herndon with a shared power strip. Please don't attempt to relate commercial Internet activity of the mid-90s (with signed contracts all around) with the early days when any possible ambiguity is (completely and utterly FALSELY) claimed, because back then the government owned it (not any corporation) and Jon ran it, and there wasn't a single whit of ambiguity in any of it.

-- 
Jo Rhett