[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

>>> if RIPE policy doesn't apply to legacy space, why are the legacy
>>> holders raising a proposal at all?
>> because the founding partents actually are trying to be part of the
>> family of their children and grandchildren?
> Indeed... but I was asking a more fundamental question. If the PDP has
> no jurisdiction over the legacy holders then why are the legacy
> holders invoking a process which they are avowing has no jurisdiction
> over them?

the pdp may have no current juristiction.  but what is attempting to be
negotiated is for the pdp to have juristiction.  do you have a
suggestion for a different approach/venue?

> Please understand this is a somewhat mischievious question, but one that 
> I feel needs to be answered.

all taken in good humor and assuming good intent.  we have a wonderful
opportunity to take the high ground here, maintain humor, assume the
best of intent, and set a civilized example.

randy, pgp signing because some will not believe i wrote that :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJQPfkdAAoJEMzMBey4OgLtPt0IAKUj1JjtfD9qIAmldYue94bO
FgRooqSYvJQn5y5kSuA5+7fqr/r/DK3Si17tWQy7qVSBHoH5eVhwOn5XmxInYWNt
JnxJn09keIxInpC8yNKTktMuvtK45jWGPEnWw1qhgfDyWYdYE7hwH9HRcEY/egbo
IQrnfR1P45P+fD7197fFlBv0YQoGBKMn2ElBgf0e4QmUfs+isKIJ7KWa9+5qT+Bt
NdjEgsF9IB7w+r4RmDD/uRe7p5HCuKJ7VkRTCImGXhiVNF7+cHenM8nIztZhpEbj
Hou3VBeDvA1aWTxiRqdX3nItTPH6S6pI36JvRvBs2v2ZmEN2QH381ggu1aYd/68=
=xLHU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----