[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9

David Williamson dlw+arin at tellme.com
Mon Mar 17 11:39:29 EDT 2008

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:39:34AM -0600, cja at daydream.com wrote:
> I have to agree with Owen.  I believe that we even said what is outlined
> below on February 7th when the AC sent out a note to ppml. 
> The most important thing about this policy proposal and the
> reason that I supported writing it.. is that it is essential that the ARIN
> community has detailed discussions of this issue and how we as a community
> are going to deal with it.

As a member of nothing at all, I also agree with Owen.  It would seem
unwise to elect some of our most notable contributors to the AC, and
then muzzle them.  I'm happy to see the AC have a more vocal role in
the development process for this policy.  I fully expect them to play
by the same rules as everyone else, and for the Board to act in its
role as an auditor of the process.  If either of those bodies fail to
stick with established and documented process, I'll be voting people
off at the next election.  Then again, I voted for most of the exisitng
groups based on my trust in them to act in an appropriate fashion.

I would further agree with Cathy that this is an extremely important
topic for the entire community.  I'm personally mildly in favor of the
exisitng proposal.  I think it has several flaws, but it's a darn good
start.  I would much prefer something that is overly restrictive as an
initial starting point, versus something extremely liberal. (Hard to
put that genie back in the bottle!)

I would like to see the SEC thing laid to rest for a while.  It would
appear that it is a non-issue, but it could be a point for concern.
The SEC thing will make a good topic once we get a legal opinion from
an actual lawyer.  I think we all understand that several folks are
very worried about it.  Noted and logged: let's discuss this further
*after* the lawyers do.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list