[arin-ppml] Discussion on elimination of SWIP requirements.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 4, 2017, at 08:46 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4 Jun 2017, at 10:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 03:06:09PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> 
>>> if anything, the existing SWIP rules strengthened, rather than
>>> diluted, and, more importantly, would like to see them actually
>>> enforced someday.
>> 
>> By whom?  "Enforcement" implies that there is some authority that
>> really can make such things happen.  The Internet Cops.  The ITU.
>> "Law enforcement", whoever that is.  Someone.
>> 
>> I"n my opinion, it is fortunate for us that we do not have such a
>> body.  What we have are registries whose ability to "enforce" anything
>> largely depends on the interests of the enforced-upon, so that making
>> the Internet work in our shared and common interest is the real test
>> of the value of these policies.
> 
> Andrew -
> 
> Full agreement with your sentiment, but I must make one point quite clear 
> to the community participating in this policy development - 
> 
> As noted earlier, if this community develops and adopts policy regarding how 
> the number registry is to be operated, ARIN will indeed implement such policy 
> (including marking or revocation of number resources blocks as appropriate 
> per policy.)   I am in no way advocating for, or against, any policy change, but 
> simply making clear that the ARIN community does have the ability to specify 
> how the registry will be operated and ARIN will enforce any resulting policy, 
> at least with respect to registry operation. 

With the notable exception that the board has preempted the community from actually
making any policy about revocation due to non-utilization actually stick by creating
terms in the RSA which specifically preclude such revocation.

Owen