<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Apr 14, 2022, at 7:50 AM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">The bad news is that such communications were written to be expeditious in the administration of the registry, as opposed to being written with legal clarity. As a simple example of that fact, consider that the term "IP address block” – the "thing"
being issued – was actually not defined in any of these communications.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">John, you and I both know that this isn't true. It is written in the US code of law that funded every bit of this exactly what Jon's role was, exactly what an RFC was, and exactly what the purpose of those RFCs was. I know for a fact that you know personally know this to be true, so I am baffled to hear you repeat this nonsense.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I can only misquote Kim on this because I didn't write it down and mobile video recording didn't exist at the time, but you were on the call and I'm certain you can provide the right quote. It was something on the order of "ARIN is being asked to operate on a legal fiction, with no relationship to truth or fact, that represents the outcome of negotiation between people who want something and people that demand something."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes, what you wrote above is the legal fiction ARIN has chosen to preserve. But it's not true, it is absolutely contrary to both established law and fact. I'm just getting too old to hear this nonsense repeated. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As a matter of point, you make this same argument yourself:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div class=""><ol class="MailOutline"><li class="">ARIN was formed for the purpose of administration of the registry in North America and took over that responsibility at the time of our formation – including the transfer of the registry database to ARIN at USG direction. </li><li class="">ARIN’s administration of the registry is be performed in accordance with our community-developed policies – and we are aware of no obligations that prevent ARIN from doing so for all number resources in the registry, including legacy resources. </li></ol></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Absolutely, provable true on both points.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I know you want to play nice and encourage participation, so you soft-pedal your statements. But please acknowledge the truth--there is no basis in law for someone to fail to recognize your authority and perform what was expected of them at the time of assignment, which ABSOLUTELY DID include respecting changes in policy over time.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">-- <br class="">Jo Rhett</div></div></div></body></html>