Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 7, 2016, at 11:45, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: >> What if the transfer part was made explicitly voluntary as well? Would that >> solve your worry? >> >> Personally, I'd like to remove that clause all together, I do not see where >> it is reasonable to re-justify your resources just because of a business >> reorganization. > > Hi David, > > I think the appropriate solution is to remove the offending language. > The NRPM should concisely specify the requirements we place on both > ARIN and its registrants. Anything more wishy-washy belongs in > accompanying Guidance documents that offer best practices for > compliance. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin
After the current round of last calls get worked through, I'm willing to take another run at removing this issue. I'll work on some text over the next few weeks or so. However, I still need to know what you think of making the transfer part explicitly voluntarily, would that eliminate your worry about the current language? Even if we can't find consensus to eliminate that language, I want to at make sure people aren't getting hung up on it. Thanks _______________________________________________ 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.
