[arin-ppml] Disambiguation Detour [re: IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate]

[Mike Burns]

Hi Tom,

>(1) Registry maintains a set of unique, non-overlapping number resource 
>records, each one of which is associated with exactly one "registrant" (or 
>equivalently, "registrant record"), which is defined for this purpose as >a 
>combination of (1a) a "name," plus (1b) a current/working method of payment 
>sufficient to cover recurring registry service fees.

No, I am not advocating for registry service fees for legacy holders who 
haven't signed an LRSA, which your definition would imply.
Plus I think a contact should be in the record. I do require an RSA of 
recipients of transferred addresses.

>I don't wish to be pedantic, but would it be possible for you to specify 
>precisely what "it" refers to in the above statement?

I think the Whois registry should be publicly accessible under existing 
access terms.

 >Also, could you please specify explicitly and directly (i.e., without 
reference to some another equally ambiguous term)  what, if anything, you 
model registry would *do* to make "it" publicly accessible?

I don't have a model registry, but there was a post long back where I 
provided a link to a letter to ICANN with a proposed set of policies for 
private registrars, which I guess would be a good place to start, if I were 
really interested in private registries. Which I'm not, I think that my 
attempts to change ARIN policy to make it more transparent would provide a 
disincentive to anybody trying to run a private registry.
If ARIN allows buyers and sellers to trade for money without a needs 
requirement, and doesn't gouge on pricing, what is the incentive to do 
business with a private registry?

Tom, I appreciate the change in the subject line, but my time really is 
taken up with explaining my proposal which has no connection with private 
registries, and I don't care about them enough to spend time on this, to my 
mind, side issue. If you can connect the dots for me and explain why we are 
talking about registries in the context of my proposal to drop needs 
requirements for transfers, then I am happy to continue it now.
My prior expressed support for private registries related to my desire to 
free the transfer market from the artificial constraint of needs 
requirements for transfers. I saw private registries as a means to dropping 
needs requirements, as I doubt a private registry would apply a needs 
requirement. Since I have decided to work to change ARIN's policies in this 
regard, the continued talk of private registries is a continued distraction.


Regards,
Mike