Bill said..."ARIN prohibits any use of ARIN-assigned number resources which is: (A) wholly and unambiguously within another RIR's region and (B) more than incidental to an ARIN-region infrastructure."
I think much of our earlier (and unsuccessful) effort was to codify what 'incidental' meant and a metric which was suitable for recognizing the threshold.... bd On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Draft policy 2014-1 attempts to solve a problem left over from last year. > > Howdy, > > As I understood the staff problem, it was that out-region > organizations were creating in-region straw-man companies to register > addresses for use outside the region. During the discussion this > turned in to a more general referendum on whether ARIN should be > supplying addresses to the world or just to its region. > > If I had my druthers, the policy would be simply this: > > "ARIN prohibits any use of ARIN-assigned number resources which is: > (A) wholly and unambiguously within another RIR's region and > (B) more than incidental to an ARIN-region infrastructure." > > It's concise, it's clean, and it says everything that should be said > on the subject. > > > I don't know if it's wise or unwise to have REGIONAL internet > registries, but so long as we do I think it inappropriate for one > region to UNILATERALLY serve as a registry to the world. > > > For better or for worse, I was shouted down. Many of the voting folks > here have broadly deployed ARIN addresses throughout their > multinational infrastructure and don't care to be scolded for it. > Others have used straw man companies in their own operations to > overcome the intersection of their internal bureaucracy and the arcane > strictures of the NRPM. They'd just as soon not have ARIN staff look > any closer. And let's not forget that a goodly fraction of the folks > who show up at ARIN meetings primarily represent out-region interests > in the first place. > > What really gets my goat is the rationalizations I've seen put forth > for why so-and-so's out-region use is legit. Waah. I can't possibly > make my allocation pools match my customers' installation addresses. > Waah. I don't want to have to deal with RIPE for my European > infrastructure. Boo frickin' hoo. Man up and admit that the reason you > don't want this policy is that you've knowingly been doing things > wrong for the last decade plus, and you don't want to have to change. > > Once you've admitted it, add another sentence to the brief suggested > policy: > > "ARIN number resources in use outside the region upon enaction of this > policy are grandfathered until recovered from their then-current > assignment." > > Regards. > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > 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.
