[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

At 7:57 PM +0000 3/5/08, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
>Unless, of course, some of the AC members or BoT members have legacy
>allocations that they don't actually need. Given that this transfer
>policy only benefits the legacy holders whose allocations are
>not technically justified, I think that it is time for ARIN AC
>members and ARIN BoT members to come clean, and individually, one
>by one, issue public statements as to whether or not they hold legacy
>allocations, either directly or indirectly through corporate ownerships.
>Also, whether or not their employer holds such legacy blocks, directly
>or indirectly.

Michael -
 
    Board members complete such statements (which are reviewed
    with the rest of the Board).   This information is used to avoid
    Conflict of Interest situations, so that Board members recuse
    themselves at appropriate times (e.g.  this has happened
    recently with respect to Legacy RSA discussions).

    Public disclosure of this information for Board or AC members has
    not been required in the past, but could be made a requirement if
    desired by the community.   This would be a very good item to 
    discuss at the upcoming Denver public meeting, as it would be a
    material change in expectations for those running for the AC or
    Board.

/John

P.S.  I am not a holder of any legacy address space, either directly or
        indirectly.  I don't believe that my employer (ServerVault) is a 
        holder of any legacy assignments either (and I am precluded
        from SV's interactions with ARIN due to my position as Chair).