"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
owen at delong.com
Sat Feb 5 22:44:39 CST 2011
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
>> No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system.
>> That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests.
>> And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides
> The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect "community standards" in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a "community" reached "consensus" on the matter would be a ridiculous defense.
We have a lawyer that does an excellent job of advising us on legal concerns in our policy proposals.
That is part of the policy process. As such, yes, they do somewhat inherently align with the law.
As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of "community standards"
one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process such as what
we have today.
If you know a better way to make policy reflect community standards, there is the ACSP and I'm
sure that the PDP committee would be very happy to get your input.
More information about the NANOG