IPv4 address exchange

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 03:50:44 UTC 2011

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 18:59, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> At John Curran's advice, the ARIN Advisory Council abandoned my proposals.  Two of them are now in "petition" for further discussion, including ARIN-prop-134 which outlines how to identify a "legitimate address holder" and ARIN-prop-136 which allows a Legacy holder to "opt-out" of ARIN's services.  The idea is to make it possible for legacy holders (who don't have a contract with ARIN) to disarm ARIN's whois weapon.
> I don't agree with this characterization of our actions.

Nor do I.

Those that wish to understand the ARIN Advisory Council's actions in
earnest can find the results of the AC meeting in question here:
[http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-March/020373.html] and
the minutes from that meeting, here:

You are also welcome to ping me off-list (or on arin-ppml) if you are
interested in a further explanation of my own reasons for voting to
abandon the proposals in question.


> I did not feel that John Curran advised us to act in any particular direction. Yes, he did raise some concerns
> about the outcome of the policy proposals being adopted, but, many of us already had those concerns in
> mind before John said anything.
> I believe that if the AC felt that your proposals were in the best interests of the community and/or had the
> broad support of the community, we would have placed them on the docket with or without the concerns
> expressed by Mr. Curran.
> I am speaking here only of my own personal perspective, but, I can assure you that my vote in favor
> of abandoning your proposals was based entirely on the lack of community support for the proposals
> and the nature of the proposals themselves being contrary to what I believed was the good of the
> community.
> Owen


More information about the NANOG mailing list