On Feb 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Tony Hain <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > Back up and figure out what problem is being solved. The primary reason > RIR's became possessive about their territory was "absurd protection of > their precious IPv4 allocations". Rewind to the pre-RIR timeframe, and > allocations were global, and use was global. The RIRs were brought in to > simplify the process, not fragment it.
Indeed. Regional Internet Registries provide for support in local languages and with user friendly operating hours. It is also true that RIR's can provide support for regional registry policies that may be better adapted to local conditions. > ... > Are we trying to protect the RIR's claimed autonomy over geography, or > simplify the process of distribution for a global resource? As I understand the origin of draft policy 2014-1, it would be the latter. The original intent was to clarify the circumstances under which ARIN should issue space to service providers who operate principally outside the ARIN region. The first attempts at policy in this area specified that parties had to be operating within the region to receive resources and such resources would be for use in the region, but that did not gain support. As a result, the present draft policy proposes that any party having a minimal legal and operational presence be provided resources, including those needed based on the global need. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ 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.
