On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > This is just more re-arrangement of the deck chairs, but this one isn't > going to go away regardless of a lack of support. It already had that. > > It would probably be more workable if it were written as such: > > "Any organization requesting ARIN issued number resources or ASN's must > provide ARIN with evidence of a legally established presence in the ARIN > region. " > > And this is already the case. > > The use case for "majority" doesn't work. 2 of 3 is a majority. They're > really looking for "substantial presence" more than majority if its truly > an effort to weed out their definition of bad actors. There should be a > real concern with false positives with the proposed language. And yes, the > train left the station a decade ago re: use. > > > Best, > > -M< > As ASNs are number resources, listing both might be redundant. Otherwise I would completely support that line.. "Any organization requesting ARIN issued number resources must provide ARIN with evidence of a legally established presence in the ARIN service region." John/ARIN: Based on that above line, would this create any deviation from current practice? Is this evidence already required? What level of proof would you accept? (Business Licence, Utility Bill, etc) Cheers, Christoph
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
