Re 2014-17....I support. Rudi Daniel ICT consulting 784 430 9235 On Dec 27, 2014 7:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re: What the > heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to > CI Pool Size per Section 4.4) (John Curran) > 2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization > Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate (Matthew Petach) > 3. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Rob Seastrom) > 4. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (William Herrin) > 5. Re: What is Open-IX and why does it matter? (Milton L Mueller) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:25:59 +0000 > From: John Curran <[email protected]> > To: Martin J Hannigan <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: > Re: What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: > Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > On Dec 26, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > ... > > [ snip ] > > We?ve had this question arise in the past with other trade > organizations, > and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to > address > policy for individual sectors of ARIN?s region or individual > technologies such > as hosting and wireless. Please feel free to share any > recommendations > from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it > is > also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN > policy > development process to do so on the PPML mailing list. > > Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion > to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a > year. > > Perfectly understandable, and it is fair to suppose that much of the > ongoing > address policy development efforts may not be of direct interest to the OIX > community. > > As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a written > guidance on this supported by the Board? > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is adopted by the ARIN Board. > <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> The PDP contains the following > provisions for input - > > "Policy discussions in the ARIN region are conducted on the Public Policy > Mail List (PPML) and via Public Policy Consultation (PPC). There are no > requirements for participation other than adherence to the guidelines of > behavior and decorum, and anyone interested in following the process may > subscribe to the PPML or may participate without charge in Public Policy > Consultations via in person or remote participation methods.? > > It would be good to clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide > input to "ARIN" on behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - > in writing. It would likely help to make the case to consider participating > in other ways where there is [currently] aversion. > > Trade associations can expression views via the PPML mailing list or the > Public > Policy Consultations (which take place at ARIN and NANOG meetings). These > views are considered on their merits, just as any other position posted to > PPML > or raised during the Public Policy consultation. > > In the majority of cases, a well-reasoned statement from a trade > association is > rather likely to influence the development of relevant address policy. If > this does > not turn out to be the case, then I would again recommend that the > individual trade > association members take a moment to express their views on the PPML > mailing > list. I do recognize that such participation takes a modest level of > effort, but it is a > fair and reasonable request if that input is going to be used as the basis > for policy. > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/6441701b/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:30:29 -0800 > From: Matthew Petach <[email protected]> > To: ARIN <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change > Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate > Message-ID: > <CAEmG1=oxe5Ktqes9Lyh6ugbU-UE= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 > > Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate > > > > On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended > > ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. > > > > ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html > > > > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to > > the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio > in > > February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be > > used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus > for > > adopting this as policy. > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Communications and Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > ## * ## > > > > > > OMG. > > An ARIN policy proposal that is simple, succinct, > easy to understand and implement...I love it! > > I support this proposal. > > Thanks! > > Matt > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/84458a03/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:03:28 -0500 > From: Rob Seastrom <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > Andrew Dul <[email protected]> writes: > > > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.? > > The fees and its categories are under the control of the board; > > number policy is under control of the Internet community via the > > PDP.? I believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not > > cause changes with number policy. Andrew > > +1 > > -r > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:52:59 -0500 > From: William Herrin <[email protected]> > To: Andrew Dul <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness > Message-ID: > < > cap-gugwex_wtqkputsb7rcszf6dbyxil_uv4omf4offeil6...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy. The > fees > > and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is > > under control of the Internet community via the PDP. I believe the > board's > > actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes with number policy. > > Agreed. Over the course of this discussion I've heard a number of > preposterous arguments for why address blocks large enough to support > tens of thousands of customers and employees should be deemed "small." > The arguments have nothing to do with any rational definition of small > and everything to do with the inadequate support for waiving the needs > basis tests for anything "large." > > Folks, I want to see us move away from needs testing too, but you're > shooting yourselves in the foot here. It looks to me like there's real > support for allowing it in the /22 and /24 neighborhoods. Not a > perfect consensus but something approaching it. And if history is a > guide (I'm looking at the /24 minimum assignments) success with a > cautious approach offers a 2 to 3 year path to throwing the gates wide > open. > > You can argue for /16 and /18 until you're blue in the face and get > nowhere, ever, but accepting /22 puts you on a timer until /16 becomes > inevitable. > > Be smart. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > May I solve your unusual networking challenges? > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:51:11 +0000 > From: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> > To: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>, John Curran > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Martin > As an AC member I would be very receptive to seeing forwarded emails from > OIX (or other trade association lists) that directly comment on specific > ARIN policies. I would certainly give them weight in determining community > support. A formal statement from the leadership of such an association > would of course be more powerful, but I think that a single OIX member > acting as an informal liaison by forwarding emails would serve a very > useful function. > > I understand perfectly why the majority of members of OIX or any other > trade association would not want to join a highly specialized mailing list > such as PPML. On the other hand, I am aware of the self-selection and > narrowing process that can occur on these specialized lists. Therefore I > think when people on the PPML bring to our attention relevant views from > other communities it is extremely important and useful. > > --MM > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 7:15 PM > To: John Curran > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re: > What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to > CI Pool Size per Section 4.4) > > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > ... > > [ snip ] > > > We've had this question arise in the past with other trade > organizations, > and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to > address > policy for individual sectors of ARIN's region or individual > technologies such > as hosting and wireless. Please feel free to share any > recommendations > from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it > is > also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN > policy > development process to do so on the PPML mailing list. > > Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion > to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a > year. As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a > written guidance on this supported by the Board? It would be good to > clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide input to "ARIN" on > behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - in writing. It > would likely help to make the case to consider participating in other ways > where there is [currently] aversion. > Best, > -M< > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/37ff5b35/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 60 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
