On May 26, 2015, at 6:23 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:05 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >> The reason for regional registries was not intended for policy >> purposes, but for administrative convenience for those requesting >> resources (such as local hours and language support) > > Hi John, > > If you propose that the registries' structure is intended to offer IP > addressing "flags of convenience" comparable to what happens with > international shipping, please say so plainly. That approach would > certainly justify ITU setting up shop as a sixth world-level registry > serving governments and international telephony organizations. > > If that's not your intention, then I frankly have no idea what the > quoted statement is supposed to mean and would invite you to clarify > it further.
Bill - I was pointing out that the mission of ARIN can be quite large if the community desires such, but it is important to remember that the Regional Internet Registry system (whose origins one can find in RFC 1174) came about in order to scale operational assignment and registration on an international basis, i.e. - The regionalization is not "flags of convenience” situation; it was intended to “further the Internet” in the operation of the overall registry. Furthermore, the RIR system was not intended as a mechanism for the creation of different policy among the regions; that happened as new policy was created (such as the transfer policies) on a regional basis. 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.
