I continue to support the proposal as written. Changes can be made, if necessary, later and "shall" can be incorporated at that time.
Brian Jones On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:57 PM Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > > > I have had a difference of opinion in the past, with members of the > community, with what constitutes an editorial change. I have always erred > on the side of caution. > > > > While I’m indifferent to the options, I am strongly in support of this > policy moving forward. > > > > If there is a chance that the change will be questioned during last call, > and prevent the policy from moving forward, I’m opposed to any alteration. > > > > I believe that staff have shown significant implementation differences > between the two words. > > > > Some assistance from the Advisory Council and/or Staff to the community as > what would constitute an editorial change would probably be helpful. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kevin Blumberg > > > > *From:* Chris Woodfield [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:21 PM > *To:* Owen DeLong <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> > > > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved > IPv6 Registration Requirements > > > > I agree with Owen’s assessment. If there is sufficient community support > for changing the phrase to “shall” at the PPM - I’d define “sufficient > community support” as a show of hands on that specific word choice, in > addition to the discussion here - I see no need to require another public > consultation in order to go to last call incorporating that change in terms. > > > > I’m personally in favor of “shall", although I still support as written. > Perfect as enemy of good, etc etc. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -C > > > > On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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] > <[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]> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
