> -----Original Message----- > > "ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's > > number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use" > > I feel it should be eliminated. As it was mentioned at the microphone > in the Baltimore meeting, ARIN isn't consistent in applications of > language like and appear to be widely abused. ARIN already has > Section 12. Why is that not good enough? >
I agree with Marty here. We could eliminate that, if you all think Section 12 is enough. > We seem to have completely (as usual) ignored all of the feedback > from the microphone at both the PPC and the Baltimore meeting. Not at all. All of the proposed changes are directly responsive to mic feedback in Baltimore. If you recall, the prior version had rather complicated and potentially burdensome reporting and review requirements regarding duplication of requests. That was what people complained about (including you). We've eliminated them. On the other hand there was direct expressions of support for the general objective from almost everyone, including someone from Microsoft and from Google, neither of whom were AC members, as well as another person whose affiliation I can't recall. > resources stating that this is a no op as well: already using numbers in > other regions and even ARIN (Curran) chimed in and said that it wasn't > a problem. I think you're interpretation of the situation is WAY out of line with the reality. Staff wants to STOP out of region use, and is doing so de facto because of the ambiguities in the policy. Yes, lots of people are already using numbers in other regions but if you want to continue to do that with new requests we need to solidify the policy and make it clear that this is ok. > Anyone care to address the points, from a technical perspective, that > the LEO community raised as well? You mean LEAs (law enforcement agencies)? Did you read the comments? Those concerns were addressed: "The requirement to have a minimal level of resources deployed in the region (/44 for IPv6, /22 for IPv4, 1 ASN) is an attempt to respond to law enforcement and some community concerns. An absolute threshold ensures that those applying for ARIN resources are actually operating in the region and not simply a shell company, but it avoids the known pitfalls of trying to use percentages of the organization's overall holdings to do that." > > I really wish the AC would get out of the regulatory business and into > the stewardship business. <hope> Marty, by opposing this policy you are encouraging and authorizing ARIN staff to restrict and regulate out of region use. You're the advocate of regulatory business here. Make your choice, but at least understand which side you are taking. --MM _______________________________________________ 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.
