On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/13/14, 16:24 , Morizot Timothy S wrote: > >> Steven L Ryerse wrote: >> >>> I think that the new RIPE policy is acknowledging this reality and I >>> think ARIN adopting >>> the same identical policy makes sense because it would allow the coming >>> together of >>> Legacy holders and ARIN allocations holders which I think is in >>> everyone's interest. >>> >>> Note that I would expect ARIN to be able to request and receive proof of >>> a >>> completed transaction before they update their database with the new >>> information. >>> >> >> Interesting. So you believe it's in the interest of those of us who have >> signed RSAs and LRSAs to subsidize (through our annual fees) those who want >> free registry services even though they refuse to adhere to the number >> resource policy in our region. That policy, in part, requires that the >> recipient of a legacy resource transfer, who by definition cannot be a >> legacy allocation recipient, sign an RSA and contribute toward the cost of >> providing those registry services. >> >> That's an interesting perspective, but I'm not sure I agree. ARIN can't >> really control use and advertisement of resources, but if someone who isn't >> a pre-ARIN legacy recipient expects to receive registry services, I'm okay >> with requiring them to sign an RSA and pay for those services. >> >> Scott >> > > This is actually becoming an interesting discussion, and I don't > necessarily want to squelch it. Also, I thank Marty for bringing this > change of RIPE policy to our community's attention. > You're welcome. > > However, I want to remind everyone we have nine Draft Policies of our own > on the ARIN policy docket, they were discussed at the NANOG-PPC this week. > But, the AC can always use more feedback. So, please remember to take > some time to review and comment on the Draft Policies on the ARIN policy > docket, especially if we did not get your feedback during the NANOG-PPC > this week. > Which to be honest, is embarrassing. Almost all of them were focused on moving deck chairs with respect to IPv4 and competing for who could write a better proposal. It was like watching dueling banjos for the most part. But I did also suggest that we might want to adopt something like RIPE-605 since this thread is likely to conclude "game over" with respect to the arguments around property and rights. > There is only two short months before ARIN 33 in Chicago, and the AC needs > to lock down text for any Recommended Draft Policies 30 days before the > meeting. So we need your feedback real soon now. > I plan to submit a modified version of 605 RSN. Best, -M<
_______________________________________________ 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.
