[arin-ppml] Analogies

[William Herrin]

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:12 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 2:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Maybe you mean 10b which [..] doesn't even promise
>> to leave all the registrant's
>> addresses intact... just the ones that "are not currently being
>> utilized."
>
>   I'm currently looking into this precise phrase, as it appears
>   to combine two concepts incorrectly.  I'll report back shortly.

Hi John,

I appreciate it and I encourage you do dig in to it. But at the same
time I have to say: this is all minutiae. If you want to draw in the
remainder of the legacy registrants, please target the root of the
problem.

The root of the problem is this: When you or I or anyone else
carefully analyze the LRSA and map out what connects to what, the LRSA
boils down to this: "I agree to let ARIN take away my addresses
(14b2->14e, the contract's default route) unless {9 pages of
exceptions to the default}."

Regardless of how you write the "exceptions," that just isn't an
acceptable basis for a _mutual_ agreement. It's a basis one accepts
under duress when no other rational choice is available.

When I said a contract simplified to, "We agree to keep your whois
data and RDNS delegations intact as is for one year increments until
either of us choose to cancel this contract," what I meant to imply
was a contract where the default action is "none" and then we go on to
discuss the reasonable exceptions to that rule.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004