On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set > up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address > registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted > split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to > operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous > about it. ...
Bill - It’s not inconceivable, but does have to be harmonized so that there’s still a single coordinated registry system to keep the numbers unique. The present practice for new IP registries is documented in ICANN Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2), which provides for consideration of new Regional Internet Registries per specific criteria, but it does not seem to cover the specific case that you suggest. (A copy of ICANN ICP-2 may be found online here - <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria>) There would need to discussion and consensus on a replacement coordination policy in order to cover non-geographic and/or geographic overlapping registries (and I can imagine that there are several other possible models worthy of consideration, such as central registry/registrar split models, etc.) You could contact the ASO AC if you have specific proposal to regarding ICP-2 replacement - also note that ICANN occasionally hosts discussions on RIR system evolution (as would be expected per RFC 7020), so that is another possible approach. Thanks! /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.
