John, Thank you for your comments on the merits of the proposal, but I think it is premature, as we are not sure what the proposal should be.
I think we should figure out some straw man text that is agreeable to Martin prior to beating up the proposal. __Jason On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:17 PM, John Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ 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.
