[arin-ppml] ARIN_2017-2

[Martin Hannigan]

Hi Andrew,

I could suggest the inverse, why isn't it good? Overall, covering the
spectrum including non profits can't be bad. Considering we have comments
frequently small vs. big. It's a nice rounding of all interests -- which is
good for ARIN. ARIN has huge legal risks and demonstrating inclusiveness is
never bad from that perspective.

I'm tyring to think about the scenario where this could be abused and where
the risk of this is greater than the current baseline. I suppose miscreants
could set up an all volunteer org and ask for resources. That seems equally
bizarre..

Best,

-M<

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:18 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have no opinion about this proposal, but …
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 03:15:01PM +0000, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > us and this is good for the Internet whether its being used or not.
>
> … I find this to be a pretty bizarre claim.  If the policy is never
> used, nobody has any idea whether it's good for the Internet.  On the
> whole, things that sit unused make me nervous, because I fear there
> are potential side-effects that are unknown or susceptible to abuse.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170616/b9699bfe/attachment.htm>