[arin-ppml] Some observations on the differences in the varioustransfer policy proposals

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:08 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand
> Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Some observations on the differences 
> in the varioustransfer policy proposals
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/10/2008, at 4:29 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 
> > I understand your position there, but you haven't answered my
> > question: who/what do you think is in a better position than the  
> > RIRs to do so?
> 
> 
> I think you are saying "I want you to show me your concept of The  
> Complete Solution."
> 
> I am saying "In my view the registry function in and of itself is  
> incapable of carrying the load of The Complete Solution, 
> whatever that  
> may be - if you overload the registry with contrived constraints on  
> how one can make changes in the registry you simply motivate the  
> creation of alternate registries, and then rather than having a  
> valuable and useful registry for the IPv4 Internet you have, well,  
> fatal confusion. There are many good and compelling reasons to get  
> over this IPv4 exhaustion thing and deploy IPv6, but I'm personally  
> not keen on an approach that includes destruction of the 
> integrity of  
> the entire address registry structure as a major milestone."
> 

I have trimmed APNIC Policy SIG List from this response as it 
appears to me that this is an egregious example of crossposting,

Geoff, your making a generalized statement with the phrase:

"..if you overload the registry with contrived constraints..."

So basically, the things that
YOU like and NOT overloading, they are normal registry functions.
The things that the OTHER GUY likes that YOU do NOT like, those
are covered with the loaded term "overloading"

Is that right?

As of now, no one has created any of these so-called
"alternate registries" so to put it bluntly your argument
is nothing more than speculation.

> 
> At which point I've already gone past acceptable levels of 
> brevity in  
> mail, and way past my personal quota of posts -  my sincere 
> apologies  
> for this.
>

In other words, gee, now people are nailing me to the wall for
specifics and I better find some way to claim that I don't
have to answer them, is that it?

If you don't want to defend your earlier statements then go run
off.  Otherwise, a list of SPECIFIC things that you think that
a registry SHOULD be engaged in and a list of SPECIFC things
that you think a registry SHOULD NOT be engaged, followed by some
logical reasons why, seems to me to be certainly in order.

Ted