I am in support of the policy proposal with "shall" but I would like to know of possible negative impact if approved as policy; on the past reassignments that were not SWIP ed. Is this perceived as an issue; or will the policy be retroactive? Either way.
Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>* On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:05 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: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 > Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong) > 2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 > Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:46:01 -0500 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: John Curran <[email protected]> > Cc: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Given this, I personally think that shall is the better choice of wording > for 6.5.5.4. > > Owen > > > On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:59 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> I oppose as written. > >> > >> There should not be a different standard of requirement for: > >> - re-allocation > >> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses > >> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced > >> > >> which is "shall" > >> > >> and Registration Requested by Recipient > >> > >> which is "should" > >> > >> I would support if they are both "shall". > >> > >> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's > >> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their > >> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them? > >> > >> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell > >> them they "should" SWIP it? > > > > Jason - > > > > If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has > IPv6 space from ARIN > > but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or > larger reassignments) > > would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that > would enable > > us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a > timely manner. > > > > Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing > basis will be > > in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their > obligations to follow > > ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. > potential revocation > > of the IPv6 number resources.) > > > > If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested > by Recipient? > > reads ?? the ISP should register that assignment?, then ARIN would > send on any > > received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they > should > > follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking > any action. > > > > If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested > by Recipient? > > reads ?? the ISP shall register that assignment?, then failure to do > so would be > > a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic > manner, could have > > me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure > to comply with > > number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential > revocation of > > the IPv6 number resources.) > > > > I would note that the community should be very clear about its > intentions for ISPs > > with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given > there is large > > difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. > ARIN staff remains, > > as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges > from the > > consensus-based policy development process. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20170928/6d6c415b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:03:55 -0500 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> > Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, Jason Schiller > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > While I wouldn?t consider it an editorial change, I would consider it a > minor change, which, if it had good community discussion and support at the > meeting, would, IMHO, be within the scope of pre-last-call changes that > could be made between the PPM and last call. > > The AC has, as has been mentioned before, significant discretion in > determining what is a ?minor change?. > > This is strictly my own opinion and may or may not be shared by other AC > members, staff, or anyone else. > > Owen > > > On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I support the policy as written. <> > > > > If the stick isn?t big enough it appears a simple policy change could be > used, not just for this section but all the other areas ?should? is used. > > > > I would like to point out that ?should? is currently used 30 times in > the NRPM. > > > > In reading John?s explanation, I can?t see ?should? and ?shall? being > considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another > meeting would be far worse. > > > > Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like > this, where the other party ignored you? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kevin Blumberg > > > > > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Curran > > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM > > To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved > IPv6 Registration Requirements > > > > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I oppose as written. > > > > There should not be a different standard of requirement for: > > - re-allocation > > - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses > > - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced > > > > which is "shall" > > > > and Registration Requested by Recipient > > > > which is "should" > > > > I would support if they are both "shall". > > > > Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's > > down stream customer contacts them and explains that their > > ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them? > > > > Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell > > them they "should" SWIP it? > > > > Jason - > > > > If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has > IPv6 space from ARIN > > but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or > larger reassignments) > > would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that > would enable > > us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a > timely manner. > > > > Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing > basis will be > > in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their > obligations to follow > > ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. > potential revocation > > of the IPv6 number resources.) > > > > If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested > by Recipient? > > reads ?? the ISP should register that assignment?, then ARIN would > send on any > > received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they > should > > follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking > any action. > > > > If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested > by Recipient? > > reads ?? the ISP shall register that assignment?, then failure to do > so would be > > a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic > manner, could have > > me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure > to comply with > > number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential > revocation of > > the IPv6 number resources.) > > > > I would note that the community should be very clear about its > intentions for ISPs > > with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given > there is large > > difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. > ARIN staff remains, > > as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges > from the > > consensus-based policy development process. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20170928/0fbeb396/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 147, Issue 43 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
