This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
- Previous message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
- Next message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Tue Jul 15 13:04:09 CEST 2008
Randy Bush said: > of course the rules of 'contract' vary between cultures. and i am not a > lawyer. i am told that in the states, one does not need paper, it is an > exchange with an understanding. e.g. handshakes can be enforced if > shown to be unequivocal. True. However, at least in England, a contract requires "consideration". That is, each side must be giving something to the other. I have trouble seeing where that is in the case of an IP address allocation. I don't know whether US law recognises the concept or not. In Scotland consideration is not required, so the situation may be different. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS plc | |
- Previous message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
- Next message (by thread): Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]