Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address trans
On Feb 1, 2013, at 17:41 , Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>>> Ah, yes, the ever present belief that any attempt to regulate
>>> business in the common interest is evil.
>> Ah, yes, the ever present fantasy that RIRs creating increasingly
>> Byzantine policies will help deal with the fact that IPv4 supply can't
>> meet demand.
>
> there is a significant difference between the position that the rirs
> should be bookkeepers and not regulators, and the statement that there
> should be no regulation.
>
> and arin is this year's extreme example of why the rirs should not be
> regulators.
>
> randy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Amusingly, I actually spoke against the last /8 policy for many of the
reasons now being discussed. However, the community came to consensus
and put the policy on the books.
If there's community consensus to repeal the policy, then I accept there is
no need to attempt to enforce it.
If there's no community consensus to repeal the policy, then I feel that
we have an obligation to try and make it work.
Owen