On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> > >, and (2) are operating a > > network located within the ARIN service region. In addition to meeting > > all other applicable policy requirements, a plurality of new resources > > "Plurality" is a non-starter for me. You really want to do this, pick a > percent. > > The reasons have all been stated before, both in the previous > discussion, the staff comments and the legal assessment. In context, > plurality is a sloppy, hard to pin down concept that makes management > and analysis needlessly hard. Huh? "Plurality" is a precisely defined mathematical concept. The part I have a problem with is "a network located within the ARIN service region." Networks intrinsically span service regions. Nodes can be scattered across RIR regions, links between nodes can (and often do) cross regional boundaries, and what's worse, nodes can move, both day-to-day (for example, an international corporation moves its "www.support.foocorp.com" web servers from a data center in Michigan to one in Luxembourg), and totally dynamically, as in load-balancing and site failover, as well as mobile nodes that can cross RIR boundaries at will. In which region is a Liberian-registered cruise ship sailing out of San Diego currently exploring the coast of Patagonia? Or an airplane or the ISS? There needs to be a degree of fuzziness. If we are going to force a regional preponderance of the network (a much vaguer term than "plurality"), to be in ARIN's geographical region, then (1) clearly a network with 30% ARIN, 70% RIPE should be getting its resources from RIPE, but (2) one with 29% ARIN, 28% RIPE, 25% APNIC, and the other 17% spread across Africa and Latin America should get their resources from ARIN, despite having a smaller footprint than the 1st organization. And what of (3), which has 28.99% ARIN, 29.01% RIPE right now, but it could change in the next 15 minutes? Maybe "within 5% of a plurality in the ARIN region" would be a better metric. I think right now, an organization can basically deal with the registry it finds most convenient, whether for geography, language, culture or whatever. The proposal doesn't seem to be about registry shopping (my local RIR rejected my request or has too many restrictions on my trying to commoditize or speculateon the resources, so I'm going take a dip from another well), or double-dipping or playing registries off against each other. Its goal seems to be accountability of the registrants, so I think thats what it should try to do directly. It shouldn't matter *where* an organization is based, it should matter whether it is contactable, receives and pays its bills, handles abuse complaints and technical issues, etc. If these are true, local law enforcement should have no problem tracking them down if needed. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 _______________________________________________ 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.
