[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
hannigan at gmail.com
Fri May 13 16:23:16 EDT 2011
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2. If objections exist, to succinctly identify what they are..and,
>>>> The references to RFC 2050 which in the last 6 months has enjoyed
>>>> almost universal agreement that it's not relevant; it was written in
>>>> 1996 in a time and place that is far different than today, it was a
>>>> Best *Current* Practice (emphasis added) "BCP".
>>> Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true. I have only
>>> heard a small handful of people argue that RFC 2050 is not relevant.
>>> The vast majority of the community seems to still believe that it is.
>> And just because you keep saying that it's not true doesn't mean that
>> it's not. There's ample evidence supporting my claim including
>> activity at the ICANN ASO AC and NRO NC to deprecate it. That kinda
>> sorta speaks pretty loudly. There has also been plenty of discussion
>> here with most agreeing that it's "outdated". Please, feel free to
>> demonstrate that it's relevant in some way.
> The fact that there is activity (and not action) is not an indication that
> there is widespread consensus, merely evidence that it is under
The only reason that there isn't any action is that it isnt required. "B C P".
More information about the ARIN-PPML