I am opposed to the proposal and think McTim sums it up very well. Also +1 to Owen, Vaughn and Jason.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying we should legalize the sale of alcohol to minors because they are going to drink anyway, but at least we would know who is drinking so that makes it ok. Maybe we should consider changing policy so that ARIN can recover the IP address of both organizations if they bypass policy. Mike -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dani Roisman Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2 and 8.3 transfers of IPv4 netblocks (resending to fix threading, sorry about that folks) I support this re-write of the previous draft, and agree with the removal of the 8.4 language at this stage (8.4 transfers should get separate attention due to the tie-in with other RIRs). When I defended this proposal in Montreal, I had may people come up to me after the session had ended who expressed their support. I would ask that those of you who *do* think the time has come to shift ARIN focus away from an inhibiting role, and instead prioritize accurate documentation of IPv4 market-induced transfers, please speak up now. The ARIN AC and membership needs to hear views of not only those opposed to this proposal. ---- Dani Roisman _______________________________________________ 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.
