On Sep 16, 2013, at 5:01 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem here of course is there could be a legitimate international > organization with over 50% of their network say in Asia and only say 2% in > the US. As long as the resources are going to be used in the ARIN region it > is reasonable that they should be allocated resources from ARIN. So majority > or plurality doesn't work and there will always be a scenario that is > legitimate but that doesn't fit into a contrived policy. Such an organization should be getting their resources from APNIC or at least their resources for their APNIC region networks. This policy would allow such an organization to get ARIN resources for what they use in the ARIN region and for some fraction of what they use out of region, so long as what they use in other regions does not exceed what they use in the ARIN region. It does not affect or count their resources from other RIRs except that it does prohibit double-dipping from two RIRs for the same resources. As such, what you state as a problem above appears not to apply. > I don't believe ARIN can NOT allocate resources solely because more than 50% > of existing resources reside in other regions. This is an example of trying > to use policy to NOT allocate resources and of course ARIN's mission is TO > allocate resources. The best that could be done by policy is to require they > use them within the ARIN region. I'm not sure if ARIN really wants to get > into the policing business after resources have been allocated, but that is > the only recourse if an org lies in their allocation request. If more than 50% of the existing ARIN resources are being used outside of the ARIN region, then it makes far more sense for that organization to get resources for their out-of-region networks from the appropriate RIR and move those resources back into the ARIN region prior to receiving more ARIN resources. Owen > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:07 PM > To: William Herrin > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 andIPv6 > Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised Problem Statementand > Policy Text > > On 9/15/13 13:18 , William Herrin wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:53 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN >>>> addresses in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule >>>> doesn't do that. It does, however, create a new and potentially >>>> onerous documentary burden on every registrant requesting addresses. >>> >>> With all due respect, if that's the intent, then I oppose the policy. >> >> Hi Owen, >> >> My paragraph above is in error. Terri clarified the intent of the >> draft several messages ago. >> >> Paraphrasing: the authors want better public records so they know who >> to go to or go after when there is a law enforcement issue. And they'd >> like that to be someone within their respective jurisdictions. They >> would have us tighten eligibility to those folks with some kind of >> substantive legal presence in the region. Something more than "We've >> registered a Delaware LLC and park IP addresses on rented equipment in >> a rented data center." >> >> Based on her clarification, I'd drop the language which seeks to have >> the number resources employed in-region. That muddies the issue and >> makes consensus harder than it needs to be. The issue is not where the >> IP addresses are used, but whether the registrant can be compelled to >> cooperate with local law enforcement and adhere to local law. > > The intent of requiring a plurality or a minimum percentage is not to keep > resources within the region, but along with the other requirements of a legal > presence and operating a network in region, the intent is to ensure all > organizations receiving resources from ARIN actually have a real presence > within the ARIN region, be that a network with a footprint wholly contained > within the region, a network with a global footprint based in the ARIN > region, or the in-region need of a global network, based any where. > Requiring a minimum percentage of resource be justified from within the > region adds another level of assurance that an organization has such a real > presence within the ARIN region. > > Without some minimum for justification within the ARIN region it would be > theoretically possible for an organization to have a legal presence and > operational network within region, and get resources from ARIN and use 0.001% > within the region 99.999% outside the region, that just doesn't pass a smell > test for me. That sounds more like they are operating a network with a > global footprint that is really based out of another region, than based in > the ARIN region. > > I think we want to allow organizations with a global network based in the > region to get resources from ARIN if they wish. Some organizations may want > to get resources from other RIRs, or all 5. Others organizations may find it > easier to get resources from some other RIRs (those near the minimum), and a > few may need to by policy (those with less than the minimum). But, the vast > majority of organizations shouldn't have to get resources from other RIRs > unless they want to. > >>>> More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have >>>> to keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE >>>> region and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have >>>> 30% in the APNIC region in which case I need 31% in the ARIN region, >>>> but if that drops the RIPE region down to 27% I can reduce the ARIN >>>> region holdings to 28%. >>> >>> I suppose you can make it sound complex like that, but, in reality, >>> it's much simpler… You need to make sure that more of your operations >>> using ARIN space are in the ARIN region than anywhere else. > > As I said in my response to Matt, I think we could simplify things by going > with a minimum percentage rather than a plurality. But I agree with Owen a > plurality really isn't that complicated. A minimum percentage would probably > water down the requirement more that some people want. But if we can find > consensus around a simple percentage then lets use that. I'm suggesting 20%, > 25% or 30%, but I'd like to know what others think. > > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: [email protected] > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
