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@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net