> > 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 <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:26 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@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 > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ >
