[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResource Holders

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 13 18:13:23 EST 2014


On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:18 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
> [ clip ]
>  
> 
> > However, to be honest, I'm not that interested in playing the ancient history game -- I find the whole exercise pointless and boring. I am, however, interested in what policy changes you believe it will take to get ARIN to accurately reflect reality in its registry database. What's it going to take?
> 
> I have been attempting to follow up on your suggestion to poll the
> community, but we seem to have reached an impasse because ARIN is
> keeping the registry accurate and your formulation would suggest
> otherwise. Hence, my attempt at a more balanced phrasing, i.e. that
> we should "survey the ARIN community regarding the prioritization of
> needs-based transfers vs operational usefulness of registry data."
> If we can come up with acceptable language, we'll figure out how to
> poll the ARIN community on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about polling resource holders instead? A much larger audience.
> 

Not sure how you figure that…

ARIN Community: Anyone with an email address who wishes to participate.
Resource Holders: Anyone with an object registered in the ARIN database.

While it is true that the latter is a larger group, in reality, the poll would effectively involve only the “Resource holders who choose to participate”, which I would argue is a subset of “those with an email address who wish to participate”.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140213/331faa5c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list