Sent from my iPad On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process? No
so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level playing field?"
Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that all address holders are the same basic terms to the extent practical)
so, on the one hand, you claim legacy holders have no property rights. yet you ask they sign an lrsa wherein they relinquish the rights you say they don't have.
A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
amazing. i wonder if that could be construed as an acknowledgement that they actually have those rights.
when did the lawyers and the twisty mentality get control?
randy, heading for sleep
--
p.s. apologies to folk for any suggestion they might have to dirty themselves by joining the ppml list