On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > Majority is certainly more problematic than plurality. Plurality might not be > the best possible choice, either, but nobody, including myself, has yet > proposed > a better alternative. The AC would certainly welcome any improved language > from the community if anyone has a better idea.
Hi Owen, The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN addresses in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule doesn't do that. It does, however, create a new and potentially onerous documentary burden on every registrant requesting addresses. More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have to keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE region and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have 30% in the APNIC region in which case I need 31% in the ARIN region, but if that drops the RIPE region down to 27% I can reduce the ARIN region holdings to 28%. Yuck! I'm for keeping ARIN addresses in region. I'm against creating new and potentially onerous documentary burdens. I'm doubly against creating new and potentially onerous documentary burdens which fail to plausibly achieve their defined goal. If there is no community consensus for a "should be in region" number in the 80% to 90% range then I think the draft should be abandoned. A plurality rule combines the worst elements of the notion, not the best. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
