Owen DeLong has eloquently provided some historical context as to why ARIN enforcement of existing rules, such as the one at issue presently, has tended towards what might be called "light touch" regulation.
Irrespective of the propriety of that approach, I feel the need to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, no member has even been penalized in any way for having leased IP addresses in the absence of concomitant connectivity services. (Now that the ARIN meeting has finished, I have faith that John Curran will correct me if this is just a misimpression on my part.) On the other hand if I am correct that no member has even been penalized in any way, for having violated this existing rule, then it follows, I think, that repeal of the rule now would represent, in practice, a distinction without a difference, and would amount to the sound of one hand clapping. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ 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.
