What's wrong? Do you have proof to dispute this?
If so please enlighten us with the verifiable facts.
Don
WB5EKU
(Yes, I use my call sign)
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:09 PM Victor Vaida via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Wrong
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:52 AM K7VE - John via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
1. The 44/8 (now 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10)
was never owned by "the
community"
- It was obtained by *an individual* as a resource to be used by the
amateur radio community
- It passed through a series of individuals and has been used by the
amateur radio community (at no charge/no contract)
- A wise decision was made to form a public benefit non-profit
corporation to own the address space, rather than an individual
and it was
assigned to that corporation.
- That corporation has a board of volunteer directors, who receive no
salary, and oversee its operation under their legal by-laws. It has
no
*members* or shareholders.
2. The portion of addresses that were sold was not in use (with the
exception of a block in Germany and the leaders of that community were
agreeable - they can adopt new addresses). They were not used in a way
that is routed to the general Internet as addressable nodes.
3. The corporation had no formal mechanism to "consult" with the amateur
radio community and no obligation to do so. Again, no members and more
importantly no contract.
4. People who thought differently, need to study this out and move on.
------------------------------
John D. Hays - K7VE
Kingston, WA
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net