All these arguments are most interesting, but of course nothing is certain
until the LAST judge says so...I for one would be/have been anxious to see
these principles tried in court. If I were a betting man, I would believe
that whatever argument seemed to establish the greatest order and stabilit
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:33 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> or, at the absolute most, a reading of RFC 2050 with all ambiguity
>> construed in the registrants' most favorable light.
>
> Accepting the point above for sake of argument, here's th
On 3/24/14, 13:08 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 21, 2014, at 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost
regarding business records, and it is incumbent
on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
for changes.
On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> or, at the absolute most, a reading of RFC 2050 with all ambiguity
> construed in the registrants' most favorable light.
Accepting the point above for sake of argument, here's the relevant
section of RFC 2050 -
" 7. The transfer of I
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:54 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Probably best to refer to RFC 2050, since your resources were managed
> by the InterNIC at that time, and RFC 2050 states: "This document
> describes the IP assignment policies currently used by the Regional
> Registries to implement the guideli
On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:07 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Note that RFC 2050 was operative at that time, with language requiring the
>> recipient to meet the same criteria as when qualifying to receive space; i.e.
>> Even under your assertions above, legacy holders doing transfers would be
>> still be
