[discuss] On the technical side

[John Curran]

On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 15:45 17/03/2014, John Curran wrote:
>> At this point, I have no desire to attempt to figure out that which  "is to be protected in (my) best interest"...  In my view, there are too many open questions to start formulation of specific positions.
> 
> I do not understand you. You have this way eventually expressed your position in response to my suggested work consideration. Thank you.
> 
> This position looks an absolute despise of your customers. You explain us that in a situation changing the legal context of your ARIN proposition (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html) you have no desire to invest time in considering and discussing with your staff and lawyers what could help/affect them.

JFC - 

 You apparently failed to notice the remark began with "At this point..."

 There is certainly a time for such engagement, but that will be something that 
 ARIN does as an organization with the Board and counsel.  At this time, it is
 not possible to assess legal implications of a situation evolving so rapidly.

 None of which implies "disregarding any possible legal implication"; it is 
 simply a question of timing.

> The difference however between you and me, is that you have an existing legally committed business proposition with customers, while I oppose its framework and therefore have none, but need one for my fellows from the multitude. This means that your operations are directly affected, mine far less.

 Given your level of concern about the IANA Trust document and its impact, you
 must have already started your legal efforts (which would explain you raising
 the issue on this list.)

 What has your investigations into its legal implications unveiled?  How do you 
 believe your operations (or anyones, for that matter) will be affected?

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.