nanog mailing list archives
Re: About inetnum "ownership"
From: Robert Drake <rdrake () direcpath com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:22:56 -0500
On 2/22/2016 5:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
There are always ways around the system. I suspect what has happened is that IRR's require that a company hold addresses but they have provisions for companies to be sold or change names. So the IP address brokers probably sell a "business" with the IP address block.I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer". May you please enlight me ?
It might be simpler than that. I don't know what the loopholes are but I'm sure some lawyers have read through all the documents and found a way. I imagine it's never been tested in court because proving the system is being exploited would be hard, and the parties with a vested interest probably don't have the resources to make a fight of it.
Thanks ! -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
Thanks, Robert
Current thread:
- About inetnum "ownership" Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 22)
- Re: About inetnum "ownership" Robert Drake (Feb 22)
- Re: About inetnum "ownership" Matthew Kaufman (Feb 22)
- RE: About inetnum "ownership" Naslund, Steve (Feb 22)
- RE: About inetnum "ownership" Naslund, Steve (Feb 22)
- Re: About inetnum "ownership" William Herrin (Feb 22)