21 Aug
2019
21 Aug
'19
11:59 a.m.
It’s equally viable to claim that ARDC could be in breach of their
fiduciary duty if they did not sell off the excess inventory of IPv4
address space, while it still had a substantial monetary value.
Would you sooner have a few million buggy whips in inventory, with no
market for them, after the introduction of the automobile, or the
opportunity to monetize your excess buggy whips while they still have value?
Randy
W3RWN/ VE3RWN
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:46 AM William Waites via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
--
Sent from mobile.
A reading of
NANOG Mailing List will show that the vetting of
the sale was undertaken and approved by ARIN. Specifically
look at postings by John Curran, CEO of ARIN.
John, I'm well aware of the NANOG thread. In fact it was at
John Curran's suggestion that I made a fraud report so that
they could investigate. As far as I am aware, that investigation
is ongoing.
ARDC is operating according to their bylaws and
charter.
That may be. However there is a credible case to be made that
they are in breach of their fiduciary duties with respect to
44/8. It is possible for them to remedy that and I gave one
suggestion about how they might begin do so.
Best wishes,
William VE3HW
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net