Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv4 address exchange
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:57:03 +0530

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 () 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 () gmail com)


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]