[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer listingservice
owen at delong.com
Fri Jun 12 22:32:24 EDT 2009
On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-
>>> bounces at arin.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:09 AM
>>> To: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
>>> Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer
>>> That might work too, but ARIN counsel, the AC, and others involved
>>> thought it belonged in the 2008-2 transfer policy, and the CEO has
>>> said they don't plan to do a listing service without policy
>>> them to do so.
>>> What do you think of the idea itself?
>> I probably should have mentioned that it is a nifty idea if it was
>> just us
>> NetOps working with each other and the lawyers and governments
>> would keep
>> out of it. I just don't see much hope that the litigators and
>> will keep their fingers out of the pie.
> Hi Kevin,
> Out of curiosity, do you think that litigators and regulators are
> more likely (or maybe very likely) to keep their fingers out if,
> after enabling the emergence of commercial IPv4 transfers, the RIRs
> take no further actions of any kind related to any IPv4 markets that
> emerge thereafter? Are your views on that probability-of-
> intervention question based on any particular expectation about
> whether and how IPv4 markets will actually work, or are they
> independent of all such expectations (i.e., no matter how things
> turn out, it would be better in all cases for the RIRs to take no
> position / no action at all)?
IANAL, but, I think they are far less likely to name ARIN as defendants.
More information about the ARIN-PPML