[ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested

[David Conrad]

Ted,

On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I am not arguing that ARIN doesen't have mechanisms in place to  
> verify both requirements.  I am telling you point blank that  
> nothing in your policy requires ARIN to use those mechanisms to - 
> continue to make sure- that the requestors do what they say they  
> are promising, after they get their addressing, and you have  
> nothing in your policy that specifices penalties if they do not  
> live up to their promises.

I also have nothing in my policy stating ARIN staff should use e-mail  
to communicate where appropriate.  The IPv4 Soft Landing proposal has  
already been criticized for being overly complex, yet you are  
suggesting I provide specifics on how ARIN staff should implement  
verification process even when said verification process is the same  
as what ARIN is currently using.

> In short, you have the audacity to propose modifying requirements  
> but you have no understanding of how enforcement relates to those  
> very requirements your trying to propose?

I am not proposing to change enforcement mechanisms currently in use  
at ARIN.  I gather you believe the incremental increase in the  
percentage of utilization of the last allocation implies the need to  
revise the enforcement mechanisms.  I guess I don't see why that  
would be the case.

> ...
> Maybe if you were a woman you might understand that better.

Um?

> ...
> If you do not have the guts to tell someone how to do their job  
> then you
> certainly shouldn't be writing policy.
>
> Do you even have anyone working under you at all in your real job?

Who me?  I'm just a no life geek with no experience in this field, no  
management experience, and clearly no understanding of the issues.  
However despite this, I don't think I'll withdraw the proposal as you  
so kindly suggest. Thanks for the input.

Regards,
-drc