<div dir="ltr">Heather,<br><br>Thanks so much for your clarification of intent. I want to apologize to you publicly, because I do think I came off in this thread as a bit presumptious about your intent in this proposal without having spoken to you directly. I meant no such implication toward you; my intended point was that <i>if</i> the measure was really intended to achieve legacy assimilation as a deceptive side-effect, or if anyone supported it exclusively for that outcome, that such action would be disingenuous.<br>
<br>I stand by my analysis and recommendation that the mechanism proposed does not achieve the stated goals. Clearly, improving whois integrity and authenticity of updates could hardly be called a bad thing. But I've seen no compelling argument that an RSA, in itself, does anything toward that particular goal; at least not anything that other mechanisms can't do more directly or simply.<br>
<br>Reducing fraud and spam is a lofty and virtuous goal that I think most (if not all) of us would readily enjoin. Personally, however, I think getting legacy holders under contract is more of a business imperative than a technical problem-solver. Candidly, in my opinion, any legacy holder that isn't a little worried about what will happen at or near the inevitable exhaustion inflection point (the ipv6 singularity?) is probably either incompetent or ignorant. I also don't dispute that LRSA assimilation has potential value to the community as an objective (in fact, as a non-RSA legacy holder, I am currently wringing my own hands over it in a vigorous internal self-debate); in this thread I only intend to assert that it doesn't solve this specific problem and therefore doesn't warrant this specific action.<br>
<br>Thanks, and again, my apologizes if I offended you with any unintended implication.<br><br>Best regards,<br>Eric</div>