On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > "7. Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of deployment > > of the new discrete network site, [such as, but not limited to the > > following: a network design showing existing and new discreet networks and > > supporting documentation that the proposed design in in progress such as > > contracts for new space or power, new equipment orders, publicly available > > marketing material describing the offering in a new location, or some other > > significant capital investment in the project,] the new networks shall be > > allocated: > > > > Let's go back to the original point I made in the last two PPC and > ARIN meetings. How can a company contract for real estate, energy or > network without knowing if they had IP addresses to operate their > business (in this current environment of v4 scarcity and policy > wonkery?)?
Any company with a business plan is taking risks and has to have a fall back plan (even if the plan is "pack it in") for any conceivable eventuality. You want ARIN to guarantee that they can get IPv4 before they've found a site, bought any equipment, signed any contracts with suppliers or customers, or even made any public announcements of their plans to establish a new site? What happens if ARIN says "fine, you can have your IP space", and then when it comes time to allocate it, the cupboard is bare? Or what happens if ARIN supplies some exceedingly scare IP4 to them, and then they can't find real-estate, customers, or some other obstacle prevents them from actually turning on their new network? Do they then get a windfall of salable IPv4? The org trying to set up a new MDN site should have a fallback plan if they can't get ARIN MDN space, of repurposing existing addresses, acquiring them from an upstream, buying them in the market, or using IPv6 instead. If their entire business plan depends on them getting ARIN MDN space (with no other option), then they are being irresponsible to their stakeholders. > > You're suggesting that we create even more conditions for un-qualified > staff to evaluate? What kind of energy contract is suitable in this > context? mW? mWh? kW? kWh? Min, Max, Capacity, triple peak average? > Renting slots on the medium voltage substation or acquiring energy > credits from the grid? All of them? None of them? You're proposing > non-starters. I think you're deliberately being obtuse. It isn't the amount or type of power that matters. What matters is that one method of determining that a site exists is that it is (or soon will be) on the electric grid. What's relevant are the location and dates (i.e. that the contract is current and ongoing) and that the customer be the applicant or someone the applicant is representing. Presenting an electric bill is a perfectly legitimate and common method of establishing residency, which is probably why it's included in the "such as, but not limited to" list. This is not the *ONLY* way to establish the existance of a site, it is merely one of the possible pieces of evidence. Payroll, equipment orders, budgets, networking agreements with upstream providers, site plans, existing, on-going relationship with ARIN can all show that the new site/network is legit. They wouldn't even need to reveal the site's physical location (for example if it were a battered women's shelter, though I can't imagine why one would need an MDN.) You don't need to be an electrical engineer (or do a structural analysis of the building or evaluate the personnel policies of the applicant) to judge the legitimacy of the request. > The collective "we" already sign "officer attestations". If we > elaborate our need in a way that justifies the addresses, ARIN should > assign them. If they think there's fraud, ARIN should do what they > claim they will do and "prosecute". Use Section 12. Complain to the > SEC that regulated companies are lying to them. Do something that you > can actually have credibility in the sense that someone really > understands what they are talking about. So far, #fail. If an org can't demonstrate any form of documentation that the site they are claiming actually exists, an "officer attestation" is worthless. Suing or prosecuting for fraud after the fact is far more difficult and costly (for both parties) than simply requiring evidence up front. -- 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.
