Hi Joe,
El 2/5/19 15:11, "Joe Provo" <[email protected]> escribió:
[see Disclaimer]
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:30:38PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ARIN-PPML wrote:
[snip]
> So, you???re saying that if an ARIN member is *acting* against
> the exclusive rights of use resources allocated to other members,
> not by accident, and repeatedly, is just *fine* and ARIN should not
> even remind the member that he is acting against the rules?
No one says that, and your assertion that people are "with us
on this specific formulation of this proposal or obviously support
all forms of abuse" is both offensively polarizing and wildly
I'm not native English speaker, so my wording may be not appropriate, but I
don't think is difficult to interpret what I'm trying to say. It is a way of
formulating a sentence with a generic assertion, and asking if "in general" you
will agree or not that ARIN should act when members damage other members rights.
incorrect. Existing process doesn't say that. Again, it is IMO
outside the scope of policy, and handling such is covered under
item 4 of the first paragraph of
https://www.arin.net/reference/tools/fraud_report/
"This reporting process is to be used to notify the American
Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd. (ARIN) of suspected Internet
number resource abuse [...] or (4) hijacking of number resources
in ARIN's database."
My reading on that is that it is only related to the "hijacking" of the
database account or a similar way to alter the information, so it can be used
by others. We have a similar text in RIPE as well.
It seems that underlying the proposal is some form of unstated
dissatisfaction with that process, or the public reporting of
results available on
https://www.arin.net/reference/tools/fraud_report/results/
Perhaps there's something specific you can cite? Or that you'd
be wanting to see more detail for some of the issues? Or that
the actions don't go far enough?
I see the reports in that public reporting is not showing the details, so it is
impossible to understand those cases. Most of them are marked as
"out-of-scope". Having more information may help, clearly.
[snip]
> Our goal is to have this in the 5 RIRs. If some of the regions
> decide not to go for it, they will have less credibility than
> those that go for it.
Since you aren't taking this through the Global Policy process,
you have chosen to work within the vagaries of different regional
processes, which exist as a natural consequence of Global Policy
ICP-2. I know you're specifically frustrated with these regional
variances, but I'd caution you to reflect upon the the floor
discussion from APNIC47 and overall reception for APNIC-prop-126
before indicating that regions who operate differently are
somehow "less credible".
I'm not sure to understand what is the relation here with APNIC-prop-126. I've
explained in a previous email why I don't think a global policy makes sense
here.
Flatly, I see this as an assertion that ICP-2 doesn't apply
in your situation because it happens to be inconvenient to
work through the bottom-up process appropriate for each region.
No, it is just a matter of being practical. Global Policies take longer, it is
achievable if we go for very "simple" aspects that everybody can agree and
where it is easier to find a text that match everyone, such as the change for
the IPv6 /23 to /12, etc.
Also, if one region fails to reach consensus, you have *nothing*. In this
proposal case, if one region adopt this proposal, is better than "nothing".
Again, the scope matter for this proposal is now with the board
but IMO *all* of this is outside the PDP as it is ARIN business
operations.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
