Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants

[Bruce Cornett]

Support as proposed.

Bruce C

On 11/02/2016 02:19 PM, Brian Jones wrote:

Support.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:57 PM Chris Woodfield > wrote:

Support as proposed.

-C

 > On Oct 26, 2016, at 2:17 PM, ARIN > wrote:
 >
 > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided
to send Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new
entrants to Last Call:
 >
 > The AC provided the following statement to the community:
 >
 > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial
number policy. There is support for this policy in the ARIN
community as expressed at ARIN 38 and on PPML. There has been no
opposition stated to 2016-4. At the ARIN AC meeting held on
10/21/2016, it was agreed that in the "Anything else" section of
Recommended Draft Policy 2016-4 stating that 'The text in 4.2.2 “for
specified transfers, or three months otherwise” and the text in
4.3.3 “for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise” should be
stricken if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted' should be followed by ARIN
staff as an instruction from the AC, presuming that 2016-2 (which is
what ARIN-prop-227 has become) continues to move forward after last
call.
 >
 > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments
should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call
will expire on 9 November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct
their Last Call review.
 >
 > The full text is below and available at:
 > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
 >
 > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
 > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > Communications and Member Services
 > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
 >
 > AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet
Number Resource Policy:
 >
 > The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial
number policy by ensuring that new organizations have a mechanism to
access at least a minimum amount of resources from the transfer
market. The staff and legal review (as updated 8/19/2016) is
non-controversial. There is support and no concerns have been raised
by the community regarding the proposal on PPML or elsewhere.
 >
 > Problem Statement:
 >
 > New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be
able to qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2,
particularly if they are categorized as ISPs and subject to
4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that ARIN’s free pool is exhausted,
4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that “These cases are exceptional”,
but that is no longer correct. End user organizations requiring less
a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire space from
their upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN
via transfer.
 >
 > Policy statement:
 >
 > Replace Section 4.2.2 with:
 >
 > 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
 >
 > “All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations
from ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject
to ARIN’s minimum allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a
larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested
allocation will be utilized within 24 months for specified
transfers, or three months otherwise. ISPs renumbering out of their
previous address space will be given a reasonable amount of time to
do so, and any blocks they are returning will not count against
their utilization.
 >
 > Replace Section 4.3.2 to read:
 >
 > 4.3.2 Minimum assignment
 >
 > ARIN’s minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24.
 >
 > End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations
from ARIN qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN’s minimum
assignment size.
 >
 > Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. Utilization
rate to read:
 >
 > Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by
providing appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth
projection for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
 >
 > Resulting new section 4.3.3 will be:
 >
 > Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation, by
providing appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth
projection for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
 >
 > The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate
within one year.
 >
 > A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual
network requirements.
 >
 > Comments:
 >
 > Timetable for 

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

[Brian Jones]

Support with the changes concerning the reserved pool.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:18 PM ARIN  wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to
> send Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
> to Last Call:
>
> The AC provided the following statement to the community:
>
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by ensuring that the number resources are used in accordance with
> the terms under which they were granted.  There is significant support
> for this change within the Internet community. Re: Merge into 2016-5.
> The new text "Address resources from a reserved pool (including those
> designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer."
> should be added to the revised 2016-5 sections 8.3 & 8.4 "Conditions on
> source of the transfer:”.
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call will
> expire on 9 November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their
> Last Call review.
>
> The full text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
>
> AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy:
>
> This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration
> by ensuring that IPv4 resources, which are specially designated for
> critical infrastructure and IPv6 transition, are readily available for
> many years into the future. This is done by ensuring the resources
> remain in their originally designated pool rather than being moved into
> the general IPv4 address pool via a transfer. This proposal is
> technically sound and is supported by the community.
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer
> of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and
> other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there
> are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical
> infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of
> reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8.
> First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy
> requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be
> able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific
> purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the
> space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if
> we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section
> 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single
> aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes
> smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses
> from reserved pools.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of
> the transfer:"
>
> Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in
> Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> ___
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants

[Chris Woodfield]

Support as proposed.

-C

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 2:17 PM, ARIN  wrote:
> 
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to send 
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants to Last Call:
> 
> The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> 
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number 
> policy. There is support for this policy in the ARIN community as expressed 
> at ARIN 38 and on PPML. There has been no opposition stated to 2016-4. At the 
> ARIN AC meeting held on 10/21/2016, it was agreed that in the "Anything else" 
> section of Recommended Draft Policy 2016-4 stating that 'The text in 4.2.2 
> “for specified transfers, or three months otherwise” and the text in 4.3.3 
> “for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise” should be stricken if 
> ARIN-prop-227 is adopted' should be followed by ARIN staff as an instruction 
> from the AC, presuming that 2016-2 (which is what ARIN-prop-227 has become) 
> continues to move forward after last call.
> 
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be 
> provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call will expire on 9 
> November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last Call review.
> 
> The full text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> 
> AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource 
> Policy:
> 
> The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number 
> policy by ensuring that new organizations have a mechanism to access at least 
> a minimum amount of resources from the transfer market. The staff and legal 
> review (as updated 8/19/2016) is non-controversial. There is support and no 
> concerns have been raised by the community regarding the proposal on PPML or 
> elsewhere.
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be able to 
> qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2, particularly if they are 
> categorized as ISPs and subject to 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that ARIN’s 
> free pool is exhausted, 4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that “These cases are 
> exceptional”, but that is no longer correct. End user organizations requiring 
> less a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire space from their 
> upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN via transfer.
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Replace Section 4.2.2 with:
> 
> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
> 
> “All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN 
> qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN’s minimum 
> allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by 
> documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized within 24 months 
> for specified transfers, or three months otherwise. ISPs renumbering out of 
> their previous address space will be given a reasonable amount of time to do 
> so, and any blocks they are returning will not count against their 
> utilization.
> 
> Replace Section 4.3.2 to read:
> 
> 4.3.2 Minimum assignment
> 
> ARIN’s minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24.
> 
> End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN 
> qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN’s minimum assignment size.
> 
> Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. Utilization rate to read:
> 
> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by providing 
> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for specified 
> transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
> 
> Resulting new section 4.3.3 will be:
> 
> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation, by providing 
> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for specified 
> transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
> 
> The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one 
> year.
> 
> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network 
> requirements.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> 
> Anything else
> 
> The text in 4.2.2 “for specified transfers, or three months otherwise” and 
> the text in 4.3.3 “for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise” should be 
> stricken if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted.
> ___
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants

[Brett Frankenberger]

Support.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:17:54PM -0400, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to send
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants to Last
> Call:
> 
> The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> 
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy. There is support for this policy in the ARIN community as expressed
> at ARIN 38 and on PPML. There has been no opposition stated to 2016-4. At
> the ARIN AC meeting held on 10/21/2016, it was agreed that in the "Anything
> else" section of Recommended Draft Policy 2016-4 stating that 'The text in
> 4.2.2 “for specified transfers, or three months otherwise” and the text in
> 4.3.3 “for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise” should be stricken
> if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted' should be followed by ARIN staff as an
> instruction from the AC, presuming that 2016-2 (which is what ARIN-prop-227
> has become) continues to move forward after last call.
> 
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be
> provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call will expire on 9
> November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last Call review.
> 
> The full text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> 
> AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy:
> 
> The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by ensuring that new organizations have a mechanism to access at
> least a minimum amount of resources from the transfer market. The staff and
> legal review (as updated 8/19/2016) is non-controversial. There is support
> and no concerns have been raised by the community regarding the proposal on
> PPML or elsewhere.
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be able to
> qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2, particularly if they are
> categorized as ISPs and subject to 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that ARIN’s
> free pool is exhausted, 4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that “These cases are
> exceptional”, but that is no longer correct. End user organizations
> requiring less a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire space
> from their upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN via
> transfer.
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Replace Section 4.2.2 with:
> 
> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
> 
> “All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN
> qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN’s minimum
> allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation
> by documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized within 24
> months for specified transfers, or three months otherwise. ISPs renumbering
> out of their previous address space will be given a reasonable amount of
> time to do so, and any blocks they are returning will not count against
> their utilization.
> 
> Replace Section 4.3.2 to read:
> 
> 4.3.2 Minimum assignment
> 
> ARIN’s minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24.
> 
> End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN
> qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN’s minimum assignment size.
> 
> Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. Utilization rate to read:
> 
> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by providing
> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for specified
> transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
> 
> Resulting new section 4.3.3 will be:
> 
> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation, by providing
> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for specified
> transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
> 
> The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one
> year.
> 
> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network
> requirements.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> 
> Anything else
> 
> The text in 4.2.2 “for specified transfers, or three months otherwise” and
> the text in 4.3.3 “for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise” should
> be stricken if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted.
> ___
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
PPML
You are receiving 

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

[Brett Frankenberger]

Support. 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:03PM -0400, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to send
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM to Last
> Call:
> 
> The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> 
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by reducing any confusion caused by HD-Ratio remaining in the NRPM.
> According to the staff and legal assessment, these changes align with
> current practice of ARIN staff. There is support and no concerns have been
> raised by the community regarding this proposal on PPML. During the Public
> Policy Meeting at ARIN 38 in Dallas, a concern was raised regarding the
> inclusion of comments on the fee structure in the policy statement. To
> address this issue an editorial change has been made while sending the
> policy to Last Call, removing the following unnecessary text from the
> proposed section 6.5.9.2, "(both policy and fee structure) unless or until
> the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community
> networks."
> 
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be
> provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call will expire on 9
> November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last Call review.
> 
> The full text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> 
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
> 
> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy:
> 
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by reducing any confusion caused by HD-Ratio remaining in the NRPM.
> According to the staff and legal assessment, these changes align with
> current practice of ARIN staff. There is support and no concerns have been
> raised by the community regarding this proposal on PPML.
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial
> references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6
> resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s
> as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the
> community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always
> allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without
> need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted
> under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to
> eliminate some possible confusion.
> 
> The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the
> community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace
> 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly
> equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes
> to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the
> Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community
> networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could
> receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar
> sized end-user would receive under existing policy.
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows:
> 
> 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments
> 
> While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type
> organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much
> tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend
> to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than
> provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to
> provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them
> to use end-user criteria.
> 
> 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria
> 
> To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to
> ARIN’s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network
> under section 2.11 of the NRPM.
> 
> 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources
> 
> Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as
> an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes.
> 
> Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6
> resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be
> governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq.
> 
> Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the
> policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this
> policy for IPv6 resources.
> 
> Delete section 2.8 — This section is non-operative and conflicts