[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Fri Feb 25 12:51:12 EST 2011

On 2/24/2011 11:42 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Hi, Matthew.
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> I don't understand the proposal. Are you trying to:
>> A) Keep the registration (uniqueness), whois (at least pointers), and reverse DNS (again, at least pointers) for the legacy address blocks in the ARIN region under ARIN control? (In which case I don't see what anyone would be "opting out" of)
>> B) Remove the legacy address blocks from ARIN control and transfer them to a new entity? (In which case I think you need to be operating under ICANN ICP-2 with regard to the formation of this new entity, and it isn't appropriate for the ARIN PDP)
>> C) Remove the legacy address blocks from ARIN control and NOT transfer them to a new entity? (In which case I'm not sure where you'd go, because ICANN clearly has the assumption that a single RIR will have responsibility for the block(s))
> I'm not pre-supposing any one approach.  I think approach A above is the status quo, and (as you say) it wouldn't be an opt-out.  However, approach B or C make sense - an organization might opt-out of ARIN whois in order to run their own whois server or ask somebody else to do it on their behalf.
> Note that, regarding approach B, the entity doesn't necessarily have to be a RIR within the meaning of ICP-2.  ARIN could, for instance, allow a registry/registrar approach, allow a post-allocation service provider approach, etc - wherein the ARIN whois remains the common fabric that connects the distributed system.  This is something that would have to emerge.

Sure. But How does proposal 136 further this at all?

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list