[arin-ppml] re-org question
scott at dlvr.com
Wed Nov 9 17:25:15 EST 2016
Ok. I'm not sure if the timing would work for this particular transaction,
but it sounds like we have a real-world problem that would be fixed by
removing the last paragraph of NRPM 8.2, so we should probably write up the
problem statement and submit it as a policy proposal.
Would you be interested in putting that into the process? It sounds like
David might be interested in assisting if you need any help writing it up,
or I would also be happy to do so.
I personally believe that the "work with the resource holder" language has
now outlived its usefulness, and can be safely removed, particularly in
light of the RSA constraints that prevent ARIN from reclaiming resources
due to lack of utilization.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:10 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Scott Leibrand <scott at dlvr.com> wrote:
> > If the 2010-6 language were removed, would that change your approach?
> Or is
> > signing the RSA the main stumbling block for you?
> Hi Scott,
> The RSA standing alone, I'd at least put on the table. The lawyers
> will be vetting lots of documents; one more that requires no action
> beyond a signature and a token payment is no big deal. If the lawyers
> choked on it, I'd probably go back to plan-A but it would at least get
> past me to the lawyers.
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML