Hi Steve, > On 26 Jul 2016, at 20:41, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As I said earlier there are circumstances where we as RIPE NCC are bound to >> reclaim resources from holders against their will. And however "unwanted" >> this may be by the holder of the resources, this is not because we bear >> these holders any ill will (and actually in most cases there is no dispute). >> Reclaiming resources is based on policy discussed in a bottom-up policy >> development process in our address policy working group. Calling this >> "adverse" implies that the holder is "right", and RIPE NCC is "wrong" in >> these cases. > Use of the term does not imply that the INR holder is right and the CA is > wrong. The fact that you keep using RIPE as the example CA suggests, to me, > that you are biased and very defensive, in your interpretation of the term.
I keep using RIPE as an example because I am speaking out of my own experience - an experience that I believe is relevant to this discussion. And while I expect that others who act as parent CA, at any level, might share my concern, I don't presume to speak on their behalf. Tim
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
