<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 5, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Job Snijders <<a href="mailto:job@ntt.net" class="">job@ntt.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 21:25 Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I am in complete agreement here. Let us not construct a policy in support of IP policy forum shopping. <br class="">
</blockquote><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Nobody has articulated why that would be a bad thing. Do you have any supporting data to facilitate developing an opinion one way or another?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Forum shopping creates a race to the bottom. It creates an incentive for an RIR to develop the most flexible/liberal policies in order to attract/retain customers vs. looking at policies on the basis of whether they are good for the community at large or not.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I realize there are those who subscribe to the Ayn Rand view of the world that whatever is most lucrative is inherently the best way to do things, but I am not among them.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If we want to consolidate all the RIRs into RIPE because they have the most liberal policies and lowest fees, then let’s be honest about it and do it directly through proposals to consolidate the other RIRs. Otherwise, let’s recognize the inevitable consequence of this proposal regardless of advocate’s intents (which I mostly take at face value).<br class=""></blockquote><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">You seem to blow up the scope of the proposal to impossible width. It isn’t about money or policies; the IPv6 transfer policy proposal originates from operational concerns related to the global availability of ARIN’s RPKI services. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>No, I express what I see as the inevitable conclusion of the process you propose beginning here.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I’m not saying we get there in one step with this proposal, but, I am articulating why policy forum shopping is harmful in my opinion.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>If you have an operational concern about ARIN’s trust anchor, then make a policy for issuing RPKI certificates against ARIN resources using the trust anchor from another RIR, or, work to resolve the concern with ARIN’s trust anchor and RPKI services.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In no case do I think it is worth doing significant damage to the RIR territorial exclusivity structure as a workaround to a problem with a service that is deployed to a small minority of networks and operationally utilized by almost nobody.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>