Hi Andrew, I could suggest the inverse, why isn't it good? Overall, covering the spectrum including non profits can't be bad. Considering we have comments frequently small vs. big. It's a nice rounding of all interests -- which is good for ARIN. ARIN has huge legal risks and demonstrating inclusiveness is never bad from that perspective.
I'm tyring to think about the scenario where this could be abused and where the risk of this is greater than the current baseline. I suppose miscreants could set up an all volunteer org and ask for resources. That seems equally bizarre.. Best, -M< On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:18 Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have no opinion about this proposal, but … > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 03:15:01PM +0000, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > us and this is good for the Internet whether its being used or not. > > … I find this to be a pretty bizarre claim. If the policy is never > used, nobody has any idea whether it's good for the Internet. On the > whole, things that sit unused make me nervous, because I fear there > are potential side-effects that are unknown or susceptible to abuse. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
