<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Milton Mueller wrote:<br><div><br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">> Now we are getting somewhere more reasonable. Yes, <br>> contracts can be structured to allow the parties more or <br>> less rights, more or less exclusivity, more or less <br>> transferability. But that is a choice. So lets have a <br>> discussion about that. It is obvious that ARIN does not <br>> allow free transferability of the rights it assigns, but this is <br>> just a policy decision it makes and that policy could be <br>> modified in hundreds of ways. You contribute nothing <br>> useful to that policy debate by making the word "property <br>> rights" a taboo and attempting to banish it from the discussion. <br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>Can I suggest that this conversation move in that direction?<br>The back-and-forth of "address cannot be property" vs.<br>"addresses are inherently property" seems to be deadlocked.<br>There may be policies that would follow from a definition of<br>addresses as property; what policies would you propose?<br><br>Lee<br></div></div>
</div><br>
</body></html>