John, I find it really quite amusing that you should think that particular comment was related in any way to ARIN's "appropriate rejection" ('appropriate' is, I suspect, in the eye of the beholder) of Depository's request to access ARIN's bulk whois data. In actuality, I was referencing Paul's entertaining article (which Owen so kindly provided) and, looking forward, BGPSEC+RPKI/ICANN policy. As I mentioned in the note you responded to, I figure new entrants will actually be better off not having to deal with the inherited crap that's in the existing RIR databases. I also find it interesting to ponder whether your response corroborates my view that we've entered the phase where "incumbent monopolies and their supporters attempt to actively discourage use of new disruptive entrants". I'm sure others reading your response (and ARIN's reaction to Depository's request) will make up their own minds if they care. As to whether changes should occur "without first having corresponding global discussion", I wonder if King Canute's advisors posed similar objections as the tide came in. While I might agree that such discussions would be desirable: a) This issue has been in front of us for some time now and as far as I'm aware, those "global" discussions have not to date occurred or even started. b) Where those discussions should occur is an interesting question given a slight bias inherent in the existing structures (e.g., two ICANN board members being appointed by the RIRs, the ASO being entirely composed by the RIRs, etc.) c) The cynical might view ARIN's demands that there be "global" discussions (with pre-conditions no less) before any changes occur as a not-so-subtle delaying/derailing tactic. d) The tide is already lapping at your ankles. You really might want to re-read Mike's response to Owen in this thread. Regards, -drc On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:58 PM, John Curran wrote:
|