[address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com]
> > My goal is to encourage a more robust and substantive discussion of
> > the reasons why RIPE (or any other RIR) finds it necessary to
> > sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into
> > contracts.
> 
> Milton, what you've just stated is an opinion, not fact. Andrea has
> already explained why much of the ERX space that was thrown over the
> wall to the NCC is tagged as "EU". Perhaps you didn't see this before
> you sent your email.

I did see it. I actually already knew a bit about the ERX, & thought Andrea's explanation was helpful. But it was not germane to the point I was making. 
My point was about the problems associated with trying to force legacy holders to sign RIR contracts before they can update their records. Perhaps you didn't see my original note. 
If you think my "opinion" that RIPE is willing to sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into contracts is incorrect, please support your counter-opinion with rational discussion and not with expressions of personal hostility.

I note that another member of this list stated:  "It's clear that there is a problem here which needs to be fixed, and which balances both the concerns of the ERX holders and the RIPE community (+ by extension, the RIPE NCC)." While it would be nice to have a specific proposal on that, until we discuss it and get a better grasp of the pros and cons of different approaches, that is obviously premature.

> In any case, a childish game of "oh yes it is, oh no it's not" or an
> existential debate over whether your opinion (or mine) is fact or not
> is unhelpful and inappropriate for this list. So if you want to carry
> on with that futile discussion, please do so somewhere else.

Jim, you are in no position to tell me or anyone else on this list what is helpful and appropriate. Please understand: I am not going to be silenced by unfair charges that my points are childish bickering simply because you and Gert have chosen to engage in childish bickering. I know the game you're playing very well, and it won't work. I will remain focused on substantive issues and I will not allow an important discussion to be diverted or suppressed by these kinds of tactics.

> Meanwhile, you could also improve the signal to noise ratio by
> actually discussing address policy or even submitting a proposal to

Again, this is an obviously false charge. I am discussing a specific proposal (see the header) and my comments referenced a specific section of it. Several other members of this list are involved in the discussion. You could improve the signal to noise ratio by actually discussing the policy issue instead of wasting our time on a futile attempt to drive me away with repeated expressions of personal hostility.

> > There is nothing in the messages under this heading about a "global
> > policy forum."
> 
> This is grossly misleading and you know that. You have been posting on
> this list (admittedly in a different thread) about your IGF workshop
> and stating there will be a global policy proposal. I presume you mean
> this IGF workshop will or could turn into that forum.

Yes, I do. That is an entirely appropriate topic for this forum. Indeed, there is a proposal on the table in RIPE for an inter-RIR transfer policy, and in that context an IGF workshop focused on a global transfer policy is a highly relevant topic. It has been greeted with interest by many people, including in ARIN, APNIC and AfriNIC, as well as operators. 

It is interesting to me that you are oblivious to the contradiction between telling me to develop proposals on the one hand and this attempt to suppress any discussion of an attempt to develop a proposal. 

--MM