> On 26 Mar 2018, at 14:21, Malcolm Hutty <[email protected]> wrote: > > The real meat of proposing a GIR is saying "let's have a new institution, > that has > > - THIS structure > - THIS funding model > - THIS secretariat/support/NCC equivalent > - THIS type of PDP > - THIS model for who participates in the PDP (both in theory and practice) > etc. > > Until you have a proposal (at least in outline) for what that looks > like, you don't *have* a proposal at all, just a vague idea of address > management by Coca-Cola*.
Indeed. IIRC the same points were made when there were vague proposals about the ITU becoming an RIR ~10 years ago. Those proposals were a bad idea then. So’s this LACNIC proposal now. And for many of the same reasons. Sigh.
