Generally against proposal as read. IMO any relaxation is in favor of those who when given an inch will generally take a mile or two and out of region use simply magnifies possibilities . RD On Aug 20, 2015 7:10 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: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Martin Hannigan) > 2. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Matthew Kaufman) > 3. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 ([email protected]) > 4. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Owen DeLong) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:50:58 -0400 > From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > I support this. The attestation, at least for US public companies, is not > taken lightly. Its toothless, but not meaningless even if only symbolic. > > Best, > > -M< > > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 18:32, Richard J. Letts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm unconvinced; the new policy leaves it too open for enabling > speculation. > > > > Richard Letts > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of Rob Seastrom > >> Sent: 20 August 2015 12:46 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > >> > >> > >> Dear Colleagues, > >> > >> It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted. Anyone > have > >> thoughts on "Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 > >> transfers"? > >> > >> The AC would love your input. > >> > >> Draft policy text follows: > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > >> Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > >> > >> Date: 23 June 2015 > >> > >> Problem statement: > >> > >> ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need > >> requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that > section > >> was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much > more > >> complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN > >> staff applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 > >> transfer requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much > >> more difficult to assess to the same level of detail. > >> > >> This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment > process > >> for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case > >> requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > >> > >> IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the > >> requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of > >> their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an > >> operational network within 24 months. > >> > >> Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead > >> demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section > >> 4 of the NRPM. > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate > >> > >> b. Anything else > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:58:00 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > On 8/20/2015 2:05 PM, David Huberman wrote: > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers > > where ARIN no > > > > > longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the > > attestation > > > > > turns out to be untrue. > > > > So I get what you're saying. And you're right. You and I petition > > ARIN, attest > > that we forecast to use a /X, we're lying, and we transfer it out of > > the region and > > > > ARIN is done with it - ARIN has no control over the block transferred > out. > > > > That is true today. ARIN does not have any control over how IP blocks > are used (or transferred) today. > > Which is why I'm supportive of this policy... it makes the right thing > (recording a transfer properly in the ARIN database) happen. > > > > The disagreement I have with this view is that I don't want us making > > policy that > > > > punishes the 99.9% of people who are telling the truth and just want > > to run their > > > > network, so that we can somehow "catch" the 0.01% of the scammers. I > > prefer > > > > making policy which works well for bona fide network operators. > > People will always > > > > lie, and I do not believe it?s ARIN?s job to catch that. > > > > Also agree... writing policy to try to block the wrongdoers always makes > it harder for the legitimate users... which is the group ARIN should be > supporting. > > Matthew Kaufman > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150820/8ce4741f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:57:09 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: David Huberman <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > Message-ID: > < > 1159286698.499.1440111434...@5671a995fdba4007998cbd15e5014528.nuevasync.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I agree with David here. I do believe there should be a requirement that > any new allocations must keep the allocation x amount of time before it can > transferred. Possibly 12 months+ which would thereby kill most ideas to > sell for profit. > > -Kevin > > > > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, David Huberman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers > where ARIN no > > > longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the > attestation > > > turns out to be untrue. > > > > So I get what you're saying. And you're right. You and I petition > ARIN, attest > > that we forecast to use a /X, we're lying, and we transfer it out of the > region and > > ARIN is done with it - ARIN has no control over the block transferred > out. > > > > The disagreement I have with this view is that I don't want us making > policy that > > punishes the 99.9% of people who are telling the truth and just want to > run their > > network, so that we can somehow "catch" the 0.01% of the scammers. I > prefer > > making policy which works well for bona fide network operators. People > will always > > lie, and I do not believe it?s ARIN?s job to catch that. > > > > Thanks! > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150820/e711048f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:09:36 -0700 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: David Huberman <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This is one of those areas where people of good conscience can disagree. > > I absolutely feel it is ARINs job as a steward of resources held in trust > for the community > to exercise due diligence in the issuance of those resources and to revoke > them when > fraud is detected. > > It may not be ARIN?s job to catch 100% of the liars out there, but it is > certainly important > that we do not hamstring ARIN in their ability to protect the community > from the liars > and the fraudsters to the extent possible. > > I am opposed to the proposal. > > Owen > > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:05 , David Huberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Bill, <> > > > > > Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers > where ARIN no > > > longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the > attestation > > > turns out to be untrue. > > > > So I get what you're saying. And you're right. You and I petition > ARIN, attest > > that we forecast to use a /X, we're lying, and we transfer it out of the > region and > > ARIN is done with it - ARIN has no control over the block transferred > out. > > > > The disagreement I have with this view is that I don't want us making > policy that > > punishes the 99.9% of people who are telling the truth and just want to > run their > > network, so that we can somehow "catch" the 0.01% of the scammers. I > prefer > > making policy which works well for bona fide network operators. People > will always > > lie, and I do not believe it?s ARIN?s job to catch that. > > > > Thanks! > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml < > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience > any issues. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150820/f89d39d1/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 122, Issue 19 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
