[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space
Skeeve,
On 11/03/2009, at 10:49 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
I don't like policies which are so burdensome that they force people
to go around them.
<tongue_in_cheek>
I guess we better get rid of all the internet governance policies
then ;)
</tongue_in_cheek>
Again.... I think 072 has restraint of trade written all over it.
RoT is defined as "any contractual term which seeks to restrict the
freedom of a party to engage in business".
IANAL, but I do observe that while restraint of trade clauses in
contracts are prima facie void in australian common law, it is
dependant on the on the reasonableness of the restraint, and the
interests of both parties, and the public. See Nordenfelt V. Maxim
Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Ltd AC 535 which upheld a
restraint of trade contract.
While this policy procedure is great, and comments are great... do
we have any lawyers here? Or are we geeks going to put APNIC into a
possible legal hole?
Actually it (the policy) stops (as I read it) parties going back to
APNIC. It does not stop a party finding another entity willing to
transfer IP addresses that they could acquire. No restriction there.
That said, this is again a EC responsibility, I'm sure that once the
collective say this is a responsible policy in the good of resource
management the EC will solicit the advice of the APNIC legal counsel.
Terry
