|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase
At 06:17 AM 10/6/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: >Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court order, >which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they >*should* be forced to recognize. I don't think "the courts will resolve this mess" is a reasonable or likely response given the larger international context in which this address allocation resides. As a counter point, I'm equally certain that the "registries" will have a difficult time figuring out _which_ court has jurisdiction in any given dispute, given that the planet seems to be stuffed to the brim of both courts and lawyers :-) The problem is that address prefixes _are_ being traded, and as the registry policies do not recognize this activity, the task for an ISP to validate a client's request to route an arbitrary address prefix is largely one of uninformed guesswork. I'm sure most ISPs would see the potential for liability in such a situation. But I do not see the courts as the means of resolving this situation. Yes we need a more realistic registry role where the registry role is more akin to that of a title registration office, but the courts will not provide us the wherewithal to get to that point with a set of processes and tools which support an accurate routing system where each routing entry can be authenticated to its current "owner". You can call me a faithless heathen if you want, but I just don't see why the legal process should have any deeper insight into solving this problem than the rest of us weenies! Geoff
|