On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 08:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> What we're dealing with here is intrinsically a much simpler problem than > the RIRs had to solve for aggregatable address space when CIDR > arrived. There are very good reasons why routeable address space > allocation requires policies, justifications, and annual fees. I will take > a lot of convincing that we can't fund a one-time pseudo-random allocation > with a one-time fee. After all, if after a few years nobody applies for > numbers any more, the escrowed numbers can be saved on a CD and the > registry can close down, and there's no need for continued fees. Why do the allocations have to be escrowed by the registry, instead of the allocation recipients? I can prove I possess an allocation by producing a signed e-mail from the registry. Regards, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ericsson IP Infrastructure +1 919-472-9913 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
