[arin-ppml] On a more systematic way of dealing with evolving the registry system
jcurran at arin.net
Mon Apr 18 12:16:27 EDT 2011
On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Because it is now clear that legacy holders can sell addresses without entering into a contract with ARIN, should the transfer policy be altered to reflect the fact that it is basically a voluntary decision of the buying parties to interface with the ARIN contractual regime?
The ARIN registry gets updated according to the policies set by the community;
I imagine that you can sell anything you want to another party if they value it,
but if you're discussing registration in the ARIN database, we'll continue to
follow the community-developed policy, thank you.
> I believe this event shows how short-sighted the community is being in deep-sixing Bensons's proposal(s). That would have started a process to deal with this situation more systematically.
I have no view on the particular proposals, but if you actually want a more
systematic way of dealing with this situation, that's already been asked and
answered (see attached).
President and CEO
Begin forwarded message:
> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Date: February 24, 2011 6:41:09 PM EST
> To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> False assumption #1: opting out of ARIN services means no Whois record.
>> Fact: Some people are so stuck in the mindset that ARIN and only ARIN can offer a Whois service that they are missing the point of this proposal. Are you aware of the request by a prospective competitor for bulk access to Whois so that it can be reconciled with an alternate provider and maintain a globally consistent directory?
> Milton -
> We don't seem to have any actual details regarding how such registries
> might interact with the existing system, what common goals would still
> exist (if any), or even what authority and policies they'd operate under.
> Such details are essential to understanding what exactly is being proposed
> when you reference "alternative providers", and as you are well-aware,
> these are the sort of issues that took years to work out in the DNS
> registry system and (to some extent) even now are still evolving under
> guidance from an entire ecosystem of constituencies within ICANN.
> Perhaps addressing those some of these questions via in an actual proposal
> to change ICP-2 could result in a revised framework for handling global
> number resource management? That certainly would make evaluating policy
> proposals such as ARIN-prop-136 much more straightforward.
> If such a change is desired, the most appropriate first step would be those
> who want it to work on a concrete proposal that addresses the material issues
> of introducing a new (non-geographic) competitive registry framework. That
> would allow consideration by the global community of the potential issues
> and benefits from introducing commercial registries, and furthermore could
> be actually discussed in open manner which includes governments, business,
> standards organizations and civil society.
> I presume that you are familiar with this sort of process, and hopefully
> can see how the ARIN region considering it independently from the current
> global policy for number resource management would be contrary to actually
> having open and transparent governance for these the global number resources?
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML