<div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>John,<div><br></div><div style>Reading your respons brings to mind a general question.</div><div style><br></div><div style>You said "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">the most likely </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">change that would be anticipated </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">by insertation of that into ARIN </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">policy would be ..."</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">In this and other cases the "that" is RFC-2050 text.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Shouldn't the text of RFC-2050 already impact ARIN policy?</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">(Assuming no translational issues, out of context, etc) </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">why </span><span style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">would the impact differ </span><span style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">when the text is in RFC-2050, </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">or in </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">the NRPM?</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>(I'm not debating there is value in community being more clear</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>in outlining its expectations and impact on operations. I think </div><div class="gmail_extra" style>
that point is true if this text is added to the NRPM and while this </div><div class="gmail_extra" style>text remains in RFC-2050.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>We certainly can improve on the 2050 text, but I was trying to avoid</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style>any updates that may be controversial, and was more interesting in</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>preserving the principles in 2050 in the first go around. )</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">__Jason<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank">jcurran@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On May 30, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:37 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
> .....<br>
>> Were ARIN ever to attempt meaningful alteration of my legacy address<br>
>> registration without my consent it would find itself responding in<br>
>> court, regardless of any alleged basis in policy for that action. I<br>
>> doubt I'd be the only one to see you there.<br>
><br>
> I am sure that any policy change that resulted in "meaningful"<br>
> alteration of legacy registration would be the equivalent of the<br>
> nuclear option, and the fallout would be highly toxic to<br>
> someone (and likely everyone).<br>
<br>
</div>Gary -<br>
<br>
I imagine that very much depends on what one considers "meaningful";<br>
for example, the community decided that having an abuse contact on<br>
each resource record was appropriate, and all resources in the registry<br>
were updated accordingly. I do not know what future generations of<br>
Internet operators will require of the Internet numbers registry,<br>
but it certainly could involve more "meaningful" changes if that<br>
is what is adopted.<br>
<br>
On the particular language which raised this issue ("IP addresses are<br>
valid as long as the criteria continues to be met"), the most likely<br>
change that would be anticipated by insertation of that into ARIN<br>
policy would be potential "lack of validity", and it is probably fairly<br>
important for the community to fully outline its expectations there,<br>
as could easily be a significant change compared to present operations<br>
and may be preempted by ARIN's RSA/LRSA terms and conditions if it<br>
involves ARIN taking action due to lack of utilization of number<br>
resources.<br>
<br>
FYI,<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb">/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br>
</font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br>
</font></div></span></div></font>
</div></div>