Top posting here: You could try a policy proposal, which would certainly get the AC's attention, but this might be out of scope for policy.
In addition to Owen's pertinent comments, suggestions of a non-policy nature may drawn to the attention of the Board of Trustees (and others) via the ASCP process: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html
My opinion only. John Springer On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 17, 2015, at 14:30, Ron Baione <[email protected]> wrote: The internet is supposed to make it easier for businesses and business people to connect and get things done faster, like, for example, recruiting business people, but ironically internet governance connected groups spend most of their time physically traveling to places to get mostly nothing done, and say "more work needs to be done". I disagree. First, as a member of an Internet governance group, I travel on average a total of 10-12 days per year for this purpose. We have 10 monthly telemeetings per year and 3 face to face meetings. (Accounting for 6 days of travel). The remaining days are spent on traveling to other RIR meetings or to outreach events. In addition, I spend 5-10 hours per week or more on average dealing with related list traffic. As a general rule, most of the items we work on are finalized within 18 months. I think a few have dragged on as much as 36 months, but they are rare. The minimum time for the standard process is roughly 6 months just in the process requirements. Rarely does the community come to consensus on the first draft of any policy proposal, thus extending the timeframe. Anybody remember NamesCon 2008? Me niether. There hasn't ever been a Conference that the whole world benefitted from, because conferences in the internet age are not meant for progress, conferences are just excuses for people to travel, to see and be seen, to party, in my opinion, and in my opinion proven by the fact that the internet's supposed and oft-mentioned purpose is to facilitate the entire business process, making the decision making/meeting process at conferences obsolete, unnecessary in a business sense, and also laughable, when some business people who could easily talk and compare business notes any time of day via the internet say, "Let's wait for the conference to decide on that." Why? I'm sorry you feel that way. I can think of a few conferences where large fractions of the world have benefitted from the outcome. I also know that a great deal of progress on matters of substance actually does happen at parties. I can't think of any event online or otherwise that has benefitted the entire world because the world is vast and diverse and there's almost never any sort of universally good choice. Any such choice goes rapidly into the no brainier category and there is little or no need for discussion or deliberation as there's no controversy. Conferences are not obsolete. There is value to human interaction in person both in structured meetings and at parties. So Travelers can say they are leaders who physically traveled to meet and talk with relevant business people, when I am as much of a leader writing this single critique via email as they are traveling to vegas to walk around and say, "ooh, that's interesting" 1000 times. While it might be fun to do, the internet community is waiting for real tangible progress and real solutions to real world problems and all the tech community has provided them in the past 12 months is an IWatch. I would argue that the "constant conference culture" limits real progress by getting people stuck in a never ending travel loop, where all they begin to care about is the quality of the next travel destination. Indeed, if all they do is walk around and say that's interesting a bunch of times, they aren't much of a leader and/or it's not much of a conference. Nobody I know does that. I'm not sure why you chose to post this as a reply to our discussion of 2015-8, but it doesn't seem at all related to me. Owen Ron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>; To: Jose R. de la Cruz III <[email protected]>; Cc: <[email protected]>; Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2015 11:42:22 PM Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything whichdoes not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP. Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement. It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. Owen On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III <[email protected]> wrote: John: Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers? Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? Jos? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III <[email protected]> wrote: RE: ARIN-2015-8 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? --->No. Why should they? 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further consideration of the question: - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with respect to their geolocation data. Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ 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.
