On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:49:42PM +0300, Job Snijders wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 21:25 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] > > Otherwise, let???s > > recognize the inevitable consequence of this proposal regardless of > > advocate???s intents (which I mostly take at face value). > > You seem to blow up the scope of the proposal to impossible width. It isn???t > about money or policies; the IPv6 transfer policy proposal originates from > operational concerns related to the global availability of ARIN???s RPKI > services.
Nit: the *current* formulation of the policy directly speaks to RPKI. The original proposal ( https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2019/ARIN_prop_263_orig/ ) only stated need. As a thought experiment, if the board decided to remove any [perceived] barriers to TAL adoption, would there be a new need expressed, or would this policy no longer be relevant? The answer might illuminate if this issue is best addressed within policy or not. IMO an M&A/reorg/restructure carve-out makes significant sense, similarly to other non-scarce resources. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling _______________________________________________ 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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
