IPv4 address exchange

Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.lists at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 20:27:03 CDT 2011


It is going to be hard to constructively debate the merits of a
proposal that begins with a rather condescending ad hominem attack.

There are multiple ways to bring a policy discussion in front of a
larger / different audience than whatever group or stakeholder
community you seek to raise it in, but I seriously doubt if the way
you've done this is going to be all that effective.

thanks
--srs

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Peter Thimmesch
<peter.thimmesch at depository.net> wrote:
> John,
>
>
>
> Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address
> registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence
> Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2
> March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy)
> <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre
> ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf >
>
>
>
> In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for
> reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the
> Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious
> and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree
> with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too
> much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online
> arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of
> the proposal aired.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter Thimmesch
>
> Chairman
>
>
>
>



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)




More information about the NANOG mailing list