Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> Sorry, no. The question was about guiding principles for an updated
> ICP between the RIRs. That's what I responded to: improvements to that
> document not "concerns" about individual RIRs.
>
> You also requested a tangent about detail-level changes I might make
> to the RIRs themselves, so I offered some ideas born from my direct
> experience. Sorry that confused you.


Repeating my original question:

What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of
> the RIRs today could be structured?  The 'if I could greenfield this today'
> idea?


I was not asking about updates to ICP-2. I was specifically asking for your
greenfield idea, in an attempt to work backwards and understand your
concerns and perspective.

It's clear you aren't interested in actual debate and discussion , but
would prefer to just stomp and yell. I'll stop polluting everyone else's
inboxes trying to sort through that.

Take care.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:01 AM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:26 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> > It sounds to me then that you don't really have much of an
> > issue with the RIR system generally then, but your concerns
> > are more centered on one specific RIR.
>
> Sorry, no. The question was about guiding principles for an updated
> ICP between the RIRs. That's what I responded to: improvements to that
> document not "concerns" about individual RIRs.
>
> You also requested a tangent about detail-level changes I might make
> to the RIRs themselves, so I offered some ideas born from my direct
> experience. Sorry that confused you.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill () herrin us
> https://bill.herrin.us/