Re: [arin-ppml] Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:01:55AM -0700, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28???AM Andrew Dul wrote: > > Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal? No. This would represent a form of disenfranchisement penalizing active members of the community and acting as a brake against joining the AC. Worse, it would encourage people to funnel proposal ideas though others and create a whole pile of its own political agita. Joe, long term participant, ex-AC member, bottom-up process fanatic -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5
Hey folks, We haven't had any feedback here after the publication of the Staff & Legal review as noted in Matthew's message below. Given that it speaks directly to concerns raised here on PPML, we need community feedback here to confirm *our* impressions. Please let us know! Joe On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:50:13PM -0700, Matthew Wilder wrote: > Hi PPML, > > Staff and Legal review has been conducted for Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3. The > relevant bit for the community to consider is the legal review, which is as > follows: > "No material legal issue. Removal of the officer attestation would not > materially impact ARIN???s ability to pursue cases of fraud." > > As shepherds, we believe this directly resolves the primary concern voiced > by members of the community. > > For the full staff and legal review, please check the following: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_3/#staff-and-legal-review-15-august-2022 > > Regards, > > *Matthew Wilder* > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:24 PM Matthew Wilder > wrote: > > > Hi PPML, > > > > I appreciate the lively discussion thus far on ARIN-2022-3, including > > concerns around what prosecutorial powers might be lost if officer > > attestations are no longer required. Thanks also to staff for summarizing > > the result of the ACSP Consultation 2021.4 retiring the officer attestation > > requirement for documentation of needs assessment. > > > > The prevailing concern in the community around ARIN-2022-3 appears to be > > that removing officer attestation would impede the prosecution of those > > conducting fraud. In order to have the experts address this concern, I > > (along with my fellow policy shepherd Joe) have requested a staff and legal > > review. Our hope is that staff (and legal counsel in particular) might > > directly weigh in on how important the officer attestation is. > > > > We will make sure that relevant points are highlighted back to PPML for > > the community to consider in further discussion of the draft policy. > > > > Warm regards, > > > > *Matthew Wilder* > > > ___ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 06:23:27PM -0500, Mike Burns wrote: [snip] > For point B, this policy provides the same opportunities that > ARIN has always provided its ISP customers, to temporarily sub-assign > networks to its clients. > The only difference is these clients would not be part of the > registrant's own operational network. And if all the lessors do is [snip] "The only difference" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. Number resources are precisely for operating networks. These integers have no reason to otherwise be tallied. Registration rights are not investment vehicles. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:08:04PM -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote: [snip] > Looking forward, I believe that the process needs to be reformed to be less > completely opaque, and to provide mechanisms for the NomCom to provide > feedback, to the candidates, the board, and the public, as to their reasons > whenever they choose not to place nominated candidates on the ballot. > Several suggestions have already been made on how that could be done, and I > know others are considering other mechanisms. I look forward to seeing the > board candidates' (and existing board members') positions on how they > intend to balance transparency with the need for privacy in reviewing > candidates' backgrounds. [snip] Folks interested in this topic and don't monitor the ACSP page for changes might want to note two recent Suggestions in this vein: - https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/suggestions/2021/2021-23/ - https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/suggestions/2021/2021-22/ Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:53:34AM -0700, Chris Woodfield wrote: > I support this edit, for same reasons others have mentioned. Same. > If I???m recalling yesterday???s presentation correctly, it was > ARIN Staff and Legal, not the AC, that determined that this language > could not be implemented an editorial change, so that???s not up > for debate here. Thanks for noting that. > One possible adjustment that I???d like to suggest is that the > term ???IPv4 and/or ASN resources??? seems a bit awkward, given how > many times it appears in the section. Perhaps we could add a new > section that incorporates David???s suggested language, but also > handles the clarification of the definition of number resources in > a single place, scoped to Section 8. We've been trying to pull the isolated/dangling definitions and consolidate them into Section 2. Maybe "transferrable number resources" could have a broad definition there, and would provide up-front clarity as to what is and is not transferrable under policy at a given point in time? Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised/Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2 and 8
al IPv4 address blocks by demonstrating 80% > > utilization of their currently allocated space.??? > > > > Replace > > > > ???An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in > > any 6 month period.??? > > > > with > > > > ???An organization may qualify via section 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 > > equivalent in any 6 month period.??? > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > > Anything else: > > > > This proposal is intended to be purely editorial in nature > > > > ___ > > ARIN-PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > > Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > > issues. > > ___ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 06:40:19PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: [snip] > It is. However, the text in Section 10 has to be agreed by all five RIR's > which means it goes off to global policy land. Just thinking out of the > box. Normally, I would agree, but changing section 10 for editorial changes > is a problem regardless. Then IMO we should incorporate into the developing style guide "don't touch section 10". > > The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial > > change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times. > > > I could be wrong. If it goes forward and I am, beer is on me. But you'll be > waiting at least two years in theory. Which is still a waste of time for > such a change IMHO. However, if it does go forward, count on me to start > the when is a change a change discussion. Point is, the shepherds could trim the section 10 bit and move it along if non-substantive changes to section 10 is really a problem. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:55:18PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Just waking up here with regards to the Section 10 change. > > While the section 10 changes are subtle they are also problematic. I > suggest abandoning the Section 10 change. It is not worth it. Nor is it > necessary. And it may even be undesirable. > > Nowhere in the NRPM s the term ASN defined except in Section 10. When you That is what is corrected in this policy: Section 2.X Autonomous System Number (ASN) An Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a unique identifier which represents a collection of network resources operated under a common routing policy administration, known as an autonomous system. https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_1/ > string it together such as "Autonomous System Number (ASN)" you imply that > you are creating a precise meaning. It is in Section 10. It has global > implications. The precise meaning was agreed to by ALL FIVE RIR's. If we > make this change, we make it imprecise. While there may be contractual > language elsewhere that define this term e.g. PTI agreement, conflict > causes confusion. And considering its a global policy change, do we want > that? It would require a round of global policy ratification in each RIR. I fail to see how the proposed definition in section 2 is anything but more precise than the existing Section 10 text, which doesn't *define* anything, merely introduces the acronym with the text "Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)". In most all contracts and technical documentation, one introduces an acronym once, at its earliers use, hence including the trivial editorial change from "Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)" to "ASNs" after the definition (again, above) is established. IMO, if we have set ourselves up with a system where such a trivial change requires massive effort across all the RIRs we made a mistake. Either the meat of [our] section 10 should be a separate document entity, incorporated by reference rather in the body, or we should assert that section 10 should never be touched regardless of how illogical it makes the rest of the document. The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:45:31PM -0500, ARIN wrote: > On 18 February 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: > > * ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee > > The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/' Hey folks, This will be presented at the PPM as a recommended policy - if there's any thoughts folks want to get out in front of the community ahead of the meeting, here's the thread... Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Board of Trustees Consideration Petition for ARIN -2020 -2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:08:55PM +, Tom Pruitt wrote: [snip] > For the record, AC council member Joe Provo waited > until the meeting after last call to quote the definition of fairness > to the council. To be clear, I've raised the definition use since ARIN45, as I did during that meeting and on other occasions (see for example the minutes from the AC meeting 15 Oct 2020). On the 19 Nov meeting to which you refer, I requested that staff read into the record the definition of fairness as is in the NRPM, specifically naming the section. That definition is clearly seen currently as Section 6.3.6: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-3-6-fairness I'll point out that this is likelye moot as in the 12 Dec minutes CT pointed out that he was operating not from the NRPM definition "but rather as 'general equity.'" Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2020-11: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description
Derp, you mean the names of the RIRs in the new expanded text. That sounds like a good suggestion to me! Joe, needing more coffee On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:59:07AM -0500, Joe Provo wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:55:34AM -0500, Brian Jones wrote: > > I support ARIN-2020-11 with one suggestion. Spell out what RIR stands for > > similar to the way IANA and ISP are spelled out to increase clarity and > > understandability. > > Brian, > > The image in question is in the header of Section 2. > If you have a suggestion to improve the RIR definition in > Section 2.2 ( > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-2-regional-internet-registry-rir > ), can you be more specific? > > Cheers! > > Joe > > > Brian > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:20 PM ARIN wrote: > > > > > On 17 December 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced > > > "ARIN-prop-295: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description" > > > to Draft Policy. > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11 is below and can be found at: > > > > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_11/ > > > > > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > > > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft > > > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated > > > in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles > > > are: > > > > > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > > > * Technically Sound > > > * Supported by the Community > > > > > > The PDP can be found at: > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > > > > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sean Hopkins > > > Policy Analyst > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual > > > Description > > > > > > > > > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > > > > > > > > > The beginning of Section 2 in the NRPM shows a diagram of how addressing > > > responsibility is delegated. However, this image does not appear to have a > > > description or even alt text, and the actual text is not selectable. This > > > could have accessibility implications, especially for blind people, if the > > > NRPM is converted to plain text, or if the NRPM is translated into another > > > language. > > > > > > > > > > > > Policy Statement: > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace the lead section of Section 2 with the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibility for management of address spaces is distributed globally in > > > accordance with the following procedures: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Global address space management is performed by the Internet Assigned > > > Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA distributes address space to RIRs (AfriNIC, > > > APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC), but not directly to ISPs or end > > > users. > > > > > > - RIRs, such as ARIN, distribute address space to Internet Service > > > Providers (ISPs) and directly to end-user organizations. > > > > > > - ISPs may further delegate address space to other ISPs, as well as to > > > other end-user organizations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > ARIN-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: > > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > ___ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2020-11: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:55:34AM -0500, Brian Jones wrote: > I support ARIN-2020-11 with one suggestion. Spell out what RIR stands for > similar to the way IANA and ISP are spelled out to increase clarity and > understandability. Brian, The image in question is in the header of Section 2. If you have a suggestion to improve the RIR definition in Section 2.2 ( https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-2-regional-internet-registry-rir ), can you be more specific? Cheers! Joe > Brian > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:20 PM ARIN wrote: > > > On 17 December 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced > > "ARIN-prop-295: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description" > > to Draft Policy. > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11 is below and can be found at: > > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_11/ > > > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft > > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated > > in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: > > > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > > * Technically Sound > > * Supported by the Community > > > > The PDP can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > > > > Regards, > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual > > Description > > > > > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > > > > > The beginning of Section 2 in the NRPM shows a diagram of how addressing > > responsibility is delegated. However, this image does not appear to have a > > description or even alt text, and the actual text is not selectable. This > > could have accessibility implications, especially for blind people, if the > > NRPM is converted to plain text, or if the NRPM is translated into another > > language. > > > > > > > > Policy Statement: > > > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > > > Replace the lead section of Section 2 with the following: > > > > > > > > Responsibility for management of address spaces is distributed globally in > > accordance with the following procedures: > > > > > > > > - Global address space management is performed by the Internet Assigned > > Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA distributes address space to RIRs (AfriNIC, > > APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC), but not directly to ISPs or end > > users. > > > > - RIRs, such as ARIN, distribute address space to Internet Service > > Providers (ISPs) and directly to end-user organizations. > > > > - ISPs may further delegate address space to other ISPs, as well as to > > other end-user organizations. > > > > > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate. > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > ___ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:42:45PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > [really big snips] > > > > > In the interest of both simplification and striving to eliminate > > the fee or contract details within policy, I'm a fan of Mr Woodfield's > > suggestion for simple generalization. What do folks think about: > > > > 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > > > > Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are > > subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource holder. > > Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or > > future, is simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement > > (RSA). This agreement covers terms, rights, responsibilities and > > conditions of service; failure to adhere to the RSA may result in > > revocation of number resources. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joe > > I like it, but I suggest ??are simply referred to by the term > Registration Services Agreement (RSA)?? > > Alternatively, ??each and every form of this agreement (past, present, > and future), is referred to as?? > > I would leave off the last sentence. It gets into spelling out what???s > contained in the RSA which I believe is out of scope for the PDP. > > To clarify, proposed alternate version: > > 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are > subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource holder. > Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or > future, are simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement > (RSA). SGTM but there was previous discussion indicating people didn't want to trim the references to consequences [see August thread and ARIN46 discussion]. Personally, I do not believe it belongs in the NRPM but am amenable if the community thinks it does. Hopefully this will trigger some more feedback from the community. :-) Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:47:21PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > Speaking only about my own personal opinion and observation on the situation > with no authority whatsoever... > > > On Nov 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > > > > FD: This policy is a work produce of the AC???s Policy Experience Report > > working group, which I currently chair. > > > > Taking my AC/WG chair hat off, I am in support of the updated language, > > with the caveat that the following assumptions can be relied upon: > > > > 1. The added language cannot be interpreted to place additional conditions > > on legacy resource holders that do not exist today. I???m interpreting the > > reference to resources ???allocated and assigned under these policies??? as > > implicitly excluding legacy resource holders, but please correct me if that > > assumption is incorrect. > > AIUI, legacy allocations or assignments are equally subject to ARIN policy as > any other allocation or assignment. However, since the language in question > specifically limits its scope to resources ???issued by ARIN??, it > clearly does not apply to legacy legacy registrations since those > registrations were, > by definition, issued by ARIN predecessors. > > > 2. The term ???Registration Services Agreement??? is used generically, and > > is inclusive of RSA and LRSA agreements, or other future agreements ARIN > > may have with resource holders. > > I would suggest expanding ??Registration Services Agreement (RSA)??? to > ??Registration Services Agreement (RSA, LRSA, etc.)??? in the policy text > to clarify this intent. In the interest of both simplification and striving to eliminate the fee or contract details within policy, I'm a fan of Mr Woodfield's suggestion for simple generalization. What do folks think about: 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource holder. Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or future, is simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement (RSA). This agreement covers terms, rights, responsibilities and conditions of service; failure to adhere to the RSA may result in revocation of number resources. Cheers, Joe > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee > >> > >> Problem Statement: > >> > >> The January 2020 Policy Experience Report highlighted that the existing > >> language in Section 4.2.1.2 "Annual Renewal" references fees. Fees are not > >> considered a member qualification criteria. Since fees aren't referenced > >> elsewhere in community policy, the wording was reviewed by the PEG. > >> > >> Policy Statement: > >> > >> Given that the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) already contains > >> language regarding fees, the AC Shepherds recommend to eliminate 4.2.1.2. > >> entirely and add: > >> > >> 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > >> > >> Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are > >> subject to a Registration Services Agreement (RSA) between ARIN and the > >> resource holder. This agreement covers terms, rights, responsibilities and > >> conditions of service; failure to adhere to the RSA may result in > >> revocation of number resources. > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> The AC???s understanding is that community policy should not include > >> language referring to fees, as such language is already present in the > >> Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > >> > >> Registration Services has informed us that "Section 4.2.1.2. contains > >> language detailing fee due dates, encouraging on-time payments, and > >> mentions potential revocations. It also contains a reference to web > >> documentation that has evolved significantly since this policy was > >> implemented, and may continue to do so. Essentially the entire section is > >> made of language that is already in the Registration Services Agreement, > >> and is generally fee-focused, making it outside normal scope for Internet > >> number resource policy." > >> > >> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate > >> > >> Anything Else: Community input since adopting draft has informed this > >>
Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:50:16AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML < > arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: [snip] > The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that grandfathering > addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting > nothing? There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as > far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself > requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting > minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with > much at all. Speaking only for myself, not any employer or any elected capacity, I oppose the policy precisely because it is a one-time action for one set of entities and (by its own logic) still leaving another set of affected entities [as noted by Andrew Dul 22 Oct) in the current state. I personally expected the community to respond to ARIN-2019-16 in some way, but as a more structural approach to wait-list handling, not a one-time action for a set of parties. Policies change, sometimes they apply going forward and other times they apply universally. The wait list has changed and will change in future in response to the needs of the community; it has never carried any guarantee or lack of risk. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
y > >> additional numbering resources (directly or indirectly) from ARIN, > >> unless and until it once again has a real and substantial connection > >> with the ARIN region as required by the Numbering Resource Policy Manual. > >> > >> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate > >> > >> Anything Else: > >> > >> This proposal may be overtaken by a more general approach to ARIN > >> membership legal jurisdiction exclusion > >> > >> To clarify scope, a legal entity present within the ARIN service region, > >> and a current ARIN RSA executed with that entity, is necessary to > >> receive allocations or assignments from ARIN. Therefore in the scenario > >> postulated in the problem statement, the organization would have to > >> re-establish itself within the ARIN service region to receive additional > >> resources from ARIN, while it can continue to hold the allocations or > >> assignments made prior to any merger, acquisition, or reorganization > >> activity. > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> ARIN-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: > >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > >> > > > > ___ > > ARIN-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:https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > ___ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > ___ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote: [snip] > > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something different > > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in policy ??? > > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools > > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it is > > being > > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new policy > > language. > > > > If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to put > the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly obvious > thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it abundantly > clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources > originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools. Further, the second > sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing > wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence. I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's paragraph above. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years and need for ARIN-2019-19
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:32:27PM +, Michel Py wrote: [snip] > > Joe Provo wrote : > > Since this list is archived and referenced, rather than let that sit in > > silence, > > personally I have to note - there is no such thing as "industry standard > > squat space". > > Joe, this is wishful thinking but the reality is that there > actually is such thing. [snip] In the part you didn't quote, I pointed out operators have choice. Operators may foolishly choose to squat, and there may be a circle of operators who share what space they squat, infecting others with that bad idea. Or it may be job hoppers who carry the contagin to new environments. But it is in no way "industry standard" and to perpetuate that phrasing is in itself supporting it, even without doing it yourself. PPML isn't the the place for it, but naming and shaming elsewhere (nanog?) could be an interesting exercise. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years and need for ARIN-2019-19
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:04:20PM +, Michel Py wrote: [snip] > It displeases the operators who have been using DoD space as Industry > Standard Squat Space. Since this list is archived and referenced, rather than let that sit in silence, personally I have to note - there is no such thing as "industry standard squat space". - any person who decides to deploy numbering outside the mutually-agreed registry system (squat on space) signs up their organization for future headaches. I had thought I drew attention to this presentation from Austin NANOG, but that was on the nanog list. Fun fact - the USG considers squatting on their space theft of service! And they'd love to hear from folks when it is encountered. Unfortunately the presentation wasn't recorded, but take a gander at slide 4 of https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG77/2108/20191028_Elverson_Your_As_Is_v1.pdf and useful contacts are on slide 11 and 18. IMO, not speaking on behalf of any other person or organization, etc etc. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:05:42PM +, Michel Py wrote: [snip] > My ecosystem is IPv4 and it's big enough to survive on its own > forever. So then you're not coming back to the well for more v4 addresses in the ARIN region? Then the policy wouldn't affect you... -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
Thanks everyone for the additional input and text collaboration! I look forward to getting further feedback at the meeting and being able to advance the community consensus. Cheers, Joe On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 02:15:40PM -0500, David Farmer wrote: > I also like this language for the policy text and inclusion in section 8.2 > of the NRPM. > > However, I still like the idea of adding to the other comments section of > this Draft Policy, something like the following; > > To clarify more broadly, a legal entity present within the ARIN service > region, with a current ARIN RSA executed with that entity, is necessary to > receive allocations or assignments from ARIN. Therefore, in the scenario > postulated in the problem statement, the organization would have to > re-establish itself within the ARIN service region to receive additional > resources from ARIN, while it can continue to hold the allocations or > assignments made prior to any merger, acquisition, or reorganization > activity. > > Thanks > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:31 PM John Santos wrote: > > > I prefer this wording to any of the previous proposals. I believe it > > satisfies the intent of all the previous proposals and I don't have any > > specific problems with it. I think it covers all the issues and edge cases. > > > > On 10/23/2019 01:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Joe, > > > > > > On M, I agree it???s a corner case, but there is the possibility of a > > > scenario > > > involving marriage, divorce, adoption, etc. to fall within section 8.2. > > > Not sure it???s a sufficient case to bother addressing. > > > > > > I do like the additional clarity, but agree that we should avoid > > > language that > > > is specific to corporations. > > > > > > Suggest: > > > > > > ???M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity having no presence > > > in the > > > ARIN service region will be permitted and such entity may retain any > > > existing > > > number resource holdings under their existing ARIN RSA.??? > > > > > > I believe this addresses all natural and artificial legal entities in > > > virtually all > > > cases mentioned to date while preserving the core intent of the original > > > proposal. > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > -- > > John Santos > > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > > 781-861-0670 ext 539 > > ___ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > -- > === > David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =========== > ___ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
Hey Bill, On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 07:42:20PM -0700, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:26 PM Joe Provo wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:19:27PM -0700, William Herrin wrote: > > > Lose "incorporated:" it has a specific legal meaning which excludes a > > > portion of existing registrants. > > > > > Then yeah, it solves my concern about forum shopping. > > > > > If we borrow Mr Hannigan's suggestion, does this work: > > > > "M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which > > is not formed in the ARIN service region will be permitted > > to hold only their existing number resources directly > > allocated or assigned by ARIN." > > Hi Joe, > > Could this be the exception that proves the rule that natural persons are > not permitted to request ARIN resources? Natural persons are legal > entities but they're not formed, they're born or naturalized. Do we -want- > that implicit rejection to be policy? If this were in Definitions or anywhere specifying who may or may nkt have axcess tk any resources then I'd have that concern. But this is scoped within 8.2 and as such is solely regarding M Are natural persons outside the ARIN service region being the surviving, asset-golding legal entity actually a real world concern, or are we talking about a hypothetical corner case of an already rare corner case? Cheers, joe > I'd stick with "legal entity" and avoid modifiers like "formed" or > "incorporated." > > Grammar's a bit rough too. "M activity" is the noun that goes with "will > be permitted," but the idea is that the the legal entity will be permitted. > Here's a stab at a rewrite: > > "Where M activity results in a surviving legal entity outside the ARIN > service region, the surviving legal entity may hold the number resources > but is ineligible to receive additional ARIN number resources." > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:19:27PM -0700, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:06 PM Joe Provo wrote > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:08:36AM -0500, David Farmer wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 PM Joe Provo wrote: > > > > "M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which > > > > is not incorporated in the ARIN service region will be > > > > permitted to hold only their existing number resources > > > > directly allocated or assigned by ARIN." > > > > Bill, Marty - does this address your concerns (by sidestepping > > the additional legal language :-)? > > Hi Joe, > > Lose "incorporated:" it has a specific legal meaning which excludes a > portion of existing registrants. > > Then yeah, it solves my concern about forum shopping. If we borrow Mr Hannigan's suggestion, does this work: "M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which is not formed in the ARIN service region will be permitted to hold only their existing number resources directly allocated or assigned by ARIN." Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:08:36AM -0500, David Farmer wrote: > comments inline; > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 PM Joe Provo wrote: > ... > > > Per this and additional private commentary, I'd suggest we > > keep it simple to speak directly to the matters within the > > section where the change is made (8.2 transfers) and therefore > > add the following to section 8.2: > > > > "M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which > > is not incorporated in the ARIN service region will be > > permitted to hold only their existing number resources > > directly allocated or assigned by ARIN." > > > > I support this change to the Policy Text; > > > > Would that address the desire for clarification? > > > > I think this clarifies the situation without giving the impression that an > organization can obtain resources from ARIN without being > incorporated within the ARIN region. Bill, Marty - does this address your concerns (by sidestepping the additional legal language :-)? Owen - does this address your concern or can your clarify how it doesn't? > > Do the previous existing supporters, detractors or those > > who held neutral opinions have further input? > > It might provide additional clarity without cluttering section 8.2 by > adding the following to the other comments section of this Draft Policy; > > To clarify more broadly, a legal entity incorporated within the ARIN > service region is necessary to receive any allocation or assignment from > ARIN. Therefore, in the scenario postulated in the problem statement, the > organization would have to re-establish itself within the ARIN service > region to receive additional resources from ARIN, while it can continue to > hold the allocations or assignments made prior to any merger, acquisition, > or reorganization activity. That's a great suggestion - thanks. Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:50:17PM -0500, David Farmer wrote: > I think additional clarification is necessary, I propose the following > updated policy statement to clarify this issue. Thanks for the specificity David! > M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which is not > incorporated in the ARIN service region will be permitted to hold number > resources *previously *allocated or assigned by ARIN*, however to receive > any additional resources from ARIN, a legal entity within the ARIN service > region is necessary*. Per this and additional private commentary, I'd suggest we keep it simple to speak directly to the matters within the section where the change is made (8.2 transfers) and therefore add the following to section 8.2: "M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which is not incorporated in the ARIN service region will be permitted to hold only their existing number resources directly allocated or assigned by ARIN." Would that address the desire for clarification? Do the previous existing supporters, detractors or those who held neutral opinions have further input? Thanks! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
Hello again folks, After digesting the Staff & Legal Review ( https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_12/#slr ), an issue was raised at the last AC meeting regarding the clarity of the proposal. The specific concern is that while the policy speaks to the surviving entity's ability to hold number resources, and the existing staff action is to allow such entities to retain resources, the lack of stipulation that new resources cannot be obtained introduces ambiguity. So would the parties interested in ARIN-2019-12 please indicate if they feel if the policy is: - clear as-is and doesn't need adjustment - in need of clarification in this regrd - in need of clarification in this and additional regards ...or, as usual, whatever else! :-) Thanks in advance for more input! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M - Seeking Community Comments / 2019-04
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:49:31PM +, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear all, > > (Note for the AC - it appears that discussion in context of 2019-04 is > bleeding over into the 2019-10 thread, please take these comments under > advisement for 2019-04. I'm sorry there is so much e-mail to plow > through related to the policy propoals, thank you for your time.) > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:18:22AM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > > Sure, I believe those are your beliefs. On the flip side, my beliefs > > > are that it should be possible to transfer IPv6 blocks from one RIR > > > (ARIN) to another RIR, and vice versa for reasons mentioned in the > > > last few months. > > > > What reasons ? Not have the do the work to renumber ? Or some Virtual > > Machines moving temporarily in a very hypothetical situation from one > > continent to another ? Until now I didn't see anything else than > > those. > > There are a number of reasons why transferability of Internet Number > Resources benefits our community. We should note that these arguments > have already been brought up on the mailing list and received supported > by part of the PPML readership. > > 1/ Currently the ARIN RPKI TAL is measurably less deployed than any of [snip] I fail to understand bringing this back into it. You were flatly asked when the TAL issue is resolved, would this policy still be needed and your answer was yes, because of desire [citation https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2019-April/066381.html]. (On the topic, I'm interested to know if we've seen an uptick since the [recent] routinator update allowing for an easier acceptance of the TAL? Personally, I want to solve the RPKI roadblocks, not create policy to allow the to remain.) I do not believe whim is the basis of sound policy, and barring the actual subset of issues regarding M there has been no articulation of why non-scarce resource mobility is a Good Thing for the Internet as a whole. Registry shopping is counter to ICP-2 and I assert a Bad Thing for the Internet as a whole. In previous threads, you seem to indicate you'd want to shop for services, which implies a desire for the numbers realm to have a split similar to that of registry & registrar in the domain space. Folks can draw their own conclusions regarding how well that has worked, but I think should the bad cases we've seen in the domain space (bad actors, bankruptcies, etc) be inflicted on the numbers space, global Internet stability would suffer. Setting aside that non-existent split, if simple & open (R,N)IR shopping existed, TI expect we'd see: - *IR capture (nation-states, bad actors, industry niche) - resources purposefully migrated to *IRs with which legal interactions are "challenging", enabling criminal behavior - heavier -> total regulation - proliferation of new NIRs specifically to undermine the bottom-up, collaborative principles. Thanks, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-11: M Regional Nexus Exclusion
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:52:09PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 5/21/19 11:01 AM, ARIN wrote: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-11: M Regional Nexus Exclusion > > Oppose. Seth - can you expand on the rationale here to help inform the AC deliberation? Hey everyone else - again this one hasn't seen much discussion. Is it the possible complexity of interaction with other M and nexus proposals, apathy on the topic, or smething else? Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:52:11PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 5/21/19 11:02 AM, ARIN wrote: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion > > > Also oppose. Seth, Can you expand on your reason for opposition? Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
Hey folks, Like several other proposals, we seem to have been hit by the summer slump considering the following. There was a single posted objection, and it isn't clear if lack of activity stems from - uninterest - interest in seeing 2019-13 move instead - interest in seeing 2019-4 move instead - something else Thanks in advance for more input! Joe On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:02:14PM -0400, ARIN wrote: > On 16 May 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-272: > M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_12/ [snip] > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion > > Problem Statement: > > M activity sometimes results in a surviving legal entity that is not > in ARIN service region, but may prefer to continue the pre-existing > relationship with ARIN. > > Example: Imagine a case where a global company has decided to > discontinue service in the ARIN service region (shuttering ARIN region > offices laying off ARIN region employees, and canceling ARIN region > customers) and repurpose the network resources and number resources in > the rest of its global footprint. During restructuring the company > concentrates its holdings in its European subsidiary, and then dissolved > its US legal entity. > > Imagine a case where a global company has decided to divest its service > in the ARIN region (selling all ARIN region offices, all ARIN region > network assets, all ARIN service region customers, all number resources > used in the ARIN (associated with previous noted sale of network and > customers), but retaining ARIN issued resources in use outside of the > ARIN service region. During restructuring the company concentrates its > holdings which are not in us in the ARIN service region in its European > subsidiary, and then sells off its US legal entity (including the > network, customers, addresses in use, etc) dissolved its US legal entity. > > Policy Statement: > > Add the following to section 8.2 > > M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which is not > incorporated in the ARIN service region will be permitted to hold number > resources directly allocated or assigned by ARIN. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything Else This proposal may be overtaken by a more general approach > to ARIN membership legal jurisdiction exclusion -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
Strongly oppose. We all see things through our own lenses, so I'm not suprised by the position of economists. I am troubled by some folks using the phrase "distort the market" to describe tge normal functioning of the RIR, as if there is some form of *primacy* to be placed on the transfer market. We should recall that it exists solely as a tool for resource redistribution with registry accuracy. It exists to serve us not the other way around. Cheers, Joe On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:27:15PM -0400, Alyssa Moore wrote: > Hi folks, > > Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this thread, > please indicate whether you support or oppose this draft policy. > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:42 AM David Farmer wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L > > wrote: > > > >> OK, I???ve read it, and here is my reaction: > >> > >> > >> > >> This policy requires legal comment. ARIN???s Articles and Bylaws do not > >> specifically prohibit ARIN from monetizing returned or revoked resources by > >> selling those resources into the transfer market > >> > >> > >> > >> So point #1 is that this proposed policy does not violate any articles or > >> bylaws. > >> > >> > >> > >> Today, ARIN does not financially benefit in any material way from such > >> revocations. Adoption of this policy would for the first time allow the > >> party in a contested revocation situation to argue that ARIN seeks to > >> financially benefit. Avoiding that concern is also significant. > >> > >> > >> > >> I am totally unimpressed with this argument. If ARIN revokes addresses > >> for nonpayment it is financially benefiting from the revocation is it not? > >> It is basically taking them back because it is not getting paid. > >> > >> > >> > >> If ARIN ???gets paid??? by selling the numbers into the transfer market > >> what > >> is the difference exactly? > >> > > > > Referring to the waiting list policy, the Draft Policy says, "this policy > > provides valuable number resources essentially for free". > > > > Yes, ARIN currently financially benefits, but currently, that benefit is > > at a level of cost recovery, "essentially for free" as stated above. > > Whereas, if ARIN were to dispose of resources using the market, the level > > of financial benefit is likely to be orders of magnitude larger. > > Furthermore, if this wasn't the case, then the impact on the market and the > > potential for fraud supposedly created by the waiting list, that the draft > > policy proposes to mitigate, wouldn't exist in the first place. > > > > In short, "what is the difference", probably, several orders of magnitude > > in the level of financial benefit involved. Where the financial motivations > > from simple "cost recovery" can probably be summarily dismissed by the > > court. Whereas the potential financial motivations, that one might even > > call a windfall, from market-based transactions probably at least needs to > > be examined and evaluated by the court, and probably wouldn't be summarily > > dismissed. The outcome of the two situations might be the same in the end, > > but the level of effort involved defending and the level of risk of an > > adverse ruling, are not the same at all. > > > > More generally, ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful and > > counter to its overall mission, but doesn't directly violate its Articles > > and Bylaws. > > > > That said that doesn't mean ARIN can't implement the policy, but these > > risks need to be evaluated when compared to other alternatives being > > considered, along with the possible benefits this policy could have as well. > > > > -- > > === > > David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu > > Networking & Telecommunication Services > > Office of Information Technology > > University of Minnesota > > 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > > === > > ___ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ar
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:46:42PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > On > Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 wrote: [snip] > There may be other reasons than ???shortage??? to administratively move > resources. Have you considered that others may have other priorities and > that there may be no clear downside to others if they use those policy > elements? > > I find it becoming increasingly hard to explain to anyone why IPv4 and ASNs > can move, but not IPv6. It discourages IPv6 because of lack of feature > parity. I am suprised to hear "those are scarce, these aren't" is difficult? But then I would think only speculators would view scarcity as a "feature" which requires "parity". > > If the policy was limited to IPv4 and 16 bit ASN's, I would not have a > > problem if indeed the business has moved to another region. However, I do > > not want to see this policy being used for forum shopping. I do not > > want to see the "I do not like the policies of RIR A, so I am taking my > > ball (and my numbers) to RIR B" > > What is wrong with shopping? Competition brings out the best in all of us. There may be a discussion to be had when you speak of shoping for *services*, but every time this comes up you sidestep the difference of that and shopping for *policies*, which is expressly the point the previous poster made. Cheers, Joe "look I made it to the end without mentioning ICP-2!" Provo -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 05:20:40PM +, John Curran wrote: > Folks - > > We???ve had excellent discussion of various options for the revised > ???Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet > Requests" proposed policy change ??? some of which is likely to > have to further informed folks initial views on the matter (as well > as on future policy proposals in this area), but at this time it > is fairly important that we receive focused feedback on the revised > policy text as written, with due consideration to the discussion > that has occurred online. > > To that end, at this time it would be good to know from everyone: > > 1. Are you in favor of ARIN making the policy change specified > in the revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM > 4.1.8. Unmet Requests??? ? Yes, as the conservative resumption of distribution is to the benefit of the community at large. I also look forward to near-future policy proposals refining the unmet requests policy. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-13: ARIN Membership Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:52:16PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 5/21/19 11:02 AM, ARIN wrote: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-13: ARIN Membership Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion > > Oppose this one too. > > What's with the burst of "how to be excluded from ARIN jurisdiction" > proposals right after the successful fraud case? Are the fraudsters > suddenly concerned? Firstly: an odd interpretation for a proposal that expressly seeks to put more entities into ARIN's sphere, not remove them. Secondly, the apparent timing is only due to them being accepted at the May AC meeting. If you look at the actually submission dates ( https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/ ) you'll see they were during the ARIN43 meeting. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Of interest?
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:49:09AM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > There???s a much simpler way around this, that I brought up before runout and > will bring up again: > > ARIN should take any IPv4 address space it has post-runout and sell it on > the open market at auction. [snip] So it sounds like you support https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_7/ If so, I'd strongly recommend chiming in on the otherwsie empty thread https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2019-March/032788.html as ppml participation is a major metric. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Solving the squatting problem
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 08:03:59PM +, Michel Py wrote: [snip] IMNSHO, nothing will prevent the type of people who think squatting is ok from doing it. By all means, go tilt at the class e windmill if you like; it will only be the fourth time or so, I can't recall. But it isn't anything for ARIN policy, so feel free to take it up at the IETF... -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 07:25:49PM +, Michel Py wrote: > Hi Keith, > > > Keith W. Hare wrote : > > I have not yet seen a complete clear consistent definition of BGP/Route > > hijacking. Such a definition is a prerequisite to defining a meaningful > > policy. > > I agree. I've always operated with the definition that a hijack is the purposeful subversion of the registrant's intended use of the registered prefix. (This proposal and thread is about BGP hijacks, but we also see registry hijacks and other forms.) A key problem in determining intent is that its publication is not mandatory (and that publication itself can be subverted, but that's not the flavour of hijack at hand). We have some organizations who positively assert their intent as doing so maximizes their relaible reachability, but there's a great many who do not, out of ignorance or desire. As a registrant, if I'm using this or that service which moves packets to my prefix (be it from my own ASNs, announcing it by my ISPs ASN, filtering through a DDoS scrubber, announced by my colo provider, etc) is still correctly registered to me, not that provider. If I'm smart, I will publish my intended announcement sources in - OriginAS in my whois - RPKI ROAs - IRR data ...and then anyone on the 'net can see if a given announcement (or their changes) is intented and expected or not. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
[speaking for myself] On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 10:05:15AM -0400, Andrew Bagrin wrote: > I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting > involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking? When I voted this out of scope for the NPRM, I said "I wish we were an enforcement entity, but we're not". Please do not conflate complaints on the grounds of the PDP and NRPM scope, ARIN's historical role, or ARIN's current mission, or ARIN's scope of operations with "support" of hijacking. But just because we've been down this road several times before, doesn't mean it isn't work seeing how the world has changed or if there isn't a new path to test. But as I've repeatedly stated, my opinion is merely that this (PDP) is the wrong lever to pull to acheive the goal. The correct one is the ACSP, which is used *all the time* for handling changes on the operational practices of ARIN. If folks chiming in here are unfamiliar, they should visit https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/ and browse the many open and closed suggestions and consultations which reflect the non-registry-policy concerns, suggestsions and interests of the ARIN community. That said, I think the mechanics propsed are deeply flawed especially the entire "consultants to handle cases" stuff. I'd recommend a less strict formulation of the whole thing for an ACSP submission. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
[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 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." 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? [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". 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. 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 ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
He Carlos, On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 08:52:58PM +0100, Carlos Fria?as wrote: > > On Wed, 1 May 2019, Joe Provo wrote: > > (...) > >> By way of analogy, ARIN paints the lines on the roads and strongly > >> encourages > >> everyone to stay in their own lane and to try to drive at all times on the > > [snip] > > > > Nope; ARIN is a registry. More appropriate analogies would be a > > registry of deed or title that manage policy regarding subdividing > > the same. When there's a conflict regarding such registrations in > > the Real World (in our region), you go to law enforcement and courts. > > Shockingly, that's what's encouraged in our cases. > > Hi, > > I have some trouble with the "registry of deed or title" analogy, because > those (as i understand it) don't have a distribution function, nor are > membership-based. "Distribution function" is indeed merely agreeing that the data recorded in the registry is accurate. There's no dibursement of anything. When we bought our house and land, the registry of deeds was similar only involved in verifying that the transfer from the previous holders to us was a valid contract within the scope of its operations (the state in which we live). When a neighbor was doing a construction project and we had to go block their heavy equipment, the registrar of deeds sure didn't come and settle the dispute. We went down, got the county map and they agreed. if they hadn't, law enforcement and courts would have been the next step. This, like all Internet analogies, is poor; my thrust is that rfg's is worse. To parallel ARIN with a transportation agency's "line drawing" and officials embued with law enforcement is wildly off track. [snip] > > This proposal conflates the PDP work by the community on the NRPM > > with ARIN's legal work on [L]RSA. IMO, the proper approach would > > be to file through ACSP, since it specifically exists to take > > "suggestion[s] regarding an existing or potential ARIN service > > or practice" (https://account.arin.net/public/acsp). Very simply, > > suggesting the ARIN BoT update the RSA with very specific language > > regarding hijacking and calling out specific actions or remedies. > > I'm not sure i got all of it :-) > Do you think that will work regarding already signed RSAs...? I invite you to review the RSA FQA ( https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsa_faq/ ) where this is specifically addressed under the question "The RSA has limited ARIN's authority to modify the agreement without prior consent, as described in section 1(d)(the same authority was in an unnumbered paragraph previously). What is the change about?" > > That at least express the desired norms in contract, despite the > > reality that most perps will not be under that contract. > > You are saying a new rule is bad because will not catch all or the > majority of cases...? No, I'm saying this is pointles as the ARIN NRPM (as driven through the PDP) is not the place to speak to ARIN legal agreements ([L]RSA) or business practices. But that is now up to the BoT to decide WRT this being "in scope" for the PDP. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
[as always, speaking for myself though due to my AC hat I've waited until after the petition was decided] On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:26:42PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: [snip] > Here in our area, we have an entity that builds and maintains most of > the roads. It's called CalTrans and it is a unit of the California > State government. We also have an entity that decides what the rules [snip] > This is just my way of saying that "outsourcing" the enforcement of the > clearly necessary rules-of-the-road to private parties is, and would be > a ludicriously unworkable solution, every bit as much as would be the > outsourcing of the war in Afghanistan to a private corporation (even > though *that* looney idea *has* actually been floated of late, at least > by the private parties who would stand to gain from that financially). > History has taken us down this road (of private entities privinding > public functions) before, and most of us, at least, have learned the > appropriate lesson. It just doesn't work. > > By way of analogy, ARIN paints the lines on the roads and strongly encourages > everyone to stay in their own lane and to try to drive at all times on the [snip] Nope; ARIN is a registry. More appropriate analogies would be a registry of deed or title that manage policy regarding subdividing the same. When there's a conflict regarding such registrations in the Real World (in our region), you go to law enforcement and courts. Shockingly, that's what's encouraged in our cases. > Sorry to have to break the bad news to you all, but The Cowboy Era of the > Internet is over. It's time to make a few simple rules and all agree to > live by them. Because we're not all wild ass cowboys anymore. We're > shopkeepers and farmers and bankers and dentists. [snip] To follow your previous line of argument, here you are actually wanting to *revert* from the current state of engagement actual law enforcement to private outsourcing. From this perticular never-cowboy, I see the formation of a lynch mob, temeritas in extremis. > If someone wants to explain to me how this very minimalist request is totally > unreasonable, I'm all ears. This proposal conflates the PDP work by the community on the NRPM with ARIN's legal work on [L]RSA. IMO, the proper approach would be to file through ACSP, since it specifically exists to take "suggestion[s] regarding an existing or potential ARIN service or practice" (https://account.arin.net/public/acsp). Very simply, suggesting the ARIN BoT update the RSA with very specific language regarding hijacking and calling out specific actions or remedies. That at least express the desired norms in contract, despite the reality that most perps will not be under that contract. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:33:34PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear ARIN community, [snip] > It should be incontestable now that ARIN resource holders are at a > disadvantage when it comes to RPKI services. Can I take this post as a response to my though experiment and that we do not need the proposed policy if the TAL issue is addressed? Thanks! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:33:45PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message , > John Curran wrote: > > >If you wish complete transparency regarding fraudulent requests, that can > >be accommodated, but first requires the community to come to consensus that > >requests for number resource activities (issuance/transfers/updates) should > >be made publicly. To my knowledge, there has been no proposal or > >discussion of this stance within the ARIN community. > > Well, I don't seriously expect this to actually go anywhere, and I don't > know -any- of the proper formalities or mechanics of how to do this, but > yes, I would like to put forward a proposal, at this time, that all number > resource activities (issuance/transfers/updates) should be made a matter > of public record at the time of their occurrence if they are not so > already. Note that John said "requests". All the activities you list are completed actions, which of course are recorded and public. [snip] > I see no downside to getting the facts out on the table, and then allowing > the chips to fall where they may. None of these alleged suspect actions > or activities were carried out either in back rooms or in dark alleys. > Rather, they were undertaken on the public Internet for all to see. How > then, John, can you now claim that they are subject to some sort of non- > existant and never-before-seen kind of confidentiality privilege? [snip] ARIN has long provided NDAs (cf https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/) to cover (among many other things) justification data that is commonly considered confidential matters for businesses. Off the top of my head, business plans/projections/territory expansion, customer/usage data, infrastructure detail, etc. IMO you're aiming your guns in the wrong direction. Cheers, Joe, speaking for himself only -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Re arin-ppml Spam replies to PPML posts
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:31:59PM -0300, Marilson Mapa wrote: > You know Joe, it's weird to be accused of spammer after spending more than [snip] Please note I was not accusing you of "being a spammer". Relaying the content to the list isn't helpful as the content is not being sent by the list, as your message implies. The content I received was in no was sent through ARIN's servers, rather the spammer is responding to messages sent to the list. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Fwd: Re arin-ppml Spam replies to PPML posts
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:44:52AM -0300, Marilson Mapa wrote: [snip] Can you please stop relaying the spam you are receiving to the list and thereby spamming the rest of us? -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:13:46PM -0500, David Huberman wrote: > Thank you Scott. As the co-author, I very much recognize this > proposal text is a ???first draft???. Working with my co-author > Jason Schiller, and having solicited feedback from the AC, this > proposal was submitted to solve the general problem. My hope was > the mechanics would be looked at critically by the community during > the PDP, and we would work together to improve them. With my personal hat on I'm very happy to see this getting to discussion. +100 for intent and I look forward to useful language suggestions here. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
ls in the > policy -- and the one's they could have that I can envisage, I don't > support. I see this to be a fundamental failing of our region's fragmented model. We dither over things which are non-problems in other regions due to decisions made quite some time ago... that would be a "2017 rather than 1999" conversation worth having, IMNSHO. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:04:26AM -0400, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > John, > > I think this is the FCC ruling he speaks of, and it does seem to shut down > public disclosures of most of what is contained in SWIP/WHOIS without > customer consent. This has been the rule for regular phone calls for a > long time, called CPNI. Until today I did not realise the FCC extended > this to the internet. I'm not currently providing this service, but I did so when the discussion came around and recall when this was extended. It was specifically regarding services. All the CPNI rules stremmed from a customer's existing providers having an unfair marketing advantage by looking at the customer's services and usage. It was rooted in the age of slamming and "pretexting". Even expanding that to generic Internet service did not change the definition to remove the scope of services provided to a customer. [snip] > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pdf [snip] In that doc, see "Discussion" section F "Extension of CPNI Requirements to Providers of Interconnected VoIP Service". Even with ISPs under title 2, without inclusion of service information a public registry has [IME] no relationship to the CPNI issue. That said, my personal suggestion would be to not include type of service ( -DSL-, -FTTH-, etc) in the SWIP netblock name or elsewhere in the record purely from an infosec PoV. :-) Cheers (this is not legal advice), Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:08:49PM -0400, David Huberman wrote: > In addition to these options/questions, I feel like we glossed > over the question posed by Marty Hannigan: what is the value of > REQUIRING SWIP anymore? As a community member (not as an AC member) > I have trouble supporting any of these as I'm not sure I support > SWIP being anything other than voluntary. Whois reassignments are > not the proper place for the information LE wants, in my opinion, > and has almost no value to NOCs. I find this assertion at odds with both my experience and direct inquiries to those in the anti-abuse community. Upon what basis is it made? > And ARIN doesn't need it anymore > for qualification purposes for a scarce resource. So what's he > point of all this? Genuine question; no tone implied. As a community, we (used to?) value accountability and transparency. Having a direct contact associated with a resource has IME always worked better than trying to contact a porvider with whom I have no business relationship. [snip] > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com> wrote: > > > > I am replying to bring the conversation to one of the suggestions > > on the table. > > > > Owen DeLong's suggesting of SWIP all IPv6 business users, and > > not Residential users, > > > > Or Kevin Blumberg (and David Farmer) suggestion of SWIP'ing all > > prefixes that might show up as a more specific in the global routing > > table. > > > > > > These are roughly the same result, and have a question of which > > has a more easily understandable policy. > > > > The question is who here supports one or both of these > > proposals? > > > > Who oppose one (if so which one) or both of these proposals? Since my concern is associated with the resource usage, and we in ARIN-land historically wash our hands of connectivity/reachability, as much as the second is appealing the former is more relevant and workable. I personally dislike the blanket exception embedded within it, but know there's not going to be any upside to fighting that one so would rather take what I can get. > > I would like to suggest one friendly amendment... > > - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reallocation. > > - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reassignment > >whenever that down stream customer requests such. That > >SWIP must be a reassign detail, reassign simple, or a > > residential privacy (if applicable) per the customer request. > > > > ___Jason I like the addition. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>>> While I suggest that a /60 should not trigger registration, if the > >>> community would rather kick that up to a /56, I have no problem with this. > >>> This would seem to be the more future proof option. Of course such a > >>> change > >>> calls for a new title, maybe "New policy for IPv6 Assignment > >>> Registration", > >>> and cite it as allowing even the small networks with a /32 of IPv4 to > >>> obtain a reasonable assignment of IPv6 without registration requirements, > >>> as is the current case with IPv4. > >>> > >>> Albert Erdmann > >>> Network Administrator > >>> Paradise On Line Inc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 23 May 2017, William Herrin wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net > >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','i...@arin.net');>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration > >>>>> requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 > >>>>> > >>>>> Policy statement: > >>>>> > >>>>> Amend 4.2.3.7.1 of the policy manual to strike "/29 or more" and change > >>>>> to > >>>>> "more than a /28". > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> In my opinion... > >>>> > >>>> Leave /29 alone or change it to "more than a single IP address." In these > >>>> days of IPv4 shortage, substantial networks sit behind small blocks of > >>>> public addresses. These networks should be documented with reachable POCs > >>>> lest the anti-spam/virus/malware folks slam down /24 filters for lack of > >>>> information about how misbehaving networks are partitioned. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Amend 6.5.5.1 of the policy manual to strike "/64 or more" and change to > >>>>> "more than a /60". > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Change this to "more than a /56." Service providers should NOT be > >>>> assigning > >>>> /64's to end users. If you're doing that, you're doing it wrong. An IPv6 > >>>> customer should be able to have more than one /64 subnet without > >>>> resorting > >>>> to NAT so /60 should be the absolute minimum end-user assignment, > >>>> equivalent for all intents and purposes to an IPv4 /32. If we then want > >>>> "equivalence" to the /29 policy so that individuals with the minimum and > >>>> near-minimum assignment do not need to be SWIPed, it makes sense to move > >>>> the next subnetting level up. In IPv6, assignment is strongly recommended > >>>> on nibble boundaries, so that means /56. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Bill Herrin > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> William Herrin her...@dirtside.com > >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','her...@dirtside.com');> b...@herrin.us > >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','b...@herrin.us');> > >>>> Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >>>> > >>>> ___ > >>> PPML > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 > >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','i...@arin.net');> if you experience any > >>> issues. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ___ > >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschil...@google.com > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jschil...@google.com');>|571-266-0006 > >> > >> > > > ___ > 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. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:29:29PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > The reciprocity requirement merely requires that the policies > ALLOW transfers in both directions. > > I do not believe that allowing transfers to an RIR which will not > allow transfers out is reasonable or prudent and this belief has > nothing to do with maintenance or protection of a free pool. If we > will allow transfers between RIRs, then the policies by which they > are allowed should be fair, balanced, and symmetrical. This does > not mean that I expect the ratio of actual transfers to be balanced > or symmetrical, merely that the policies under which they are > conducted should be. I'm with Owen on this. For folks who think asymmetric transfers in this context (co-operating RIRs) is OK, how do they feel regarding such transfers in other contexts? I'm specifically thinking of asymmetric lock-in transfers to certain NIRs who require resources used within their legislative boundary be in their registry. I'm concerned that even a conditional door open here sets a precedent for enabling such reduced resource fluidity. IMNSHO, that way leads to enabling Balkanization. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:46:48PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > I oppose the policy as written. > > While I agree that the validation of indirect POCs by ARIN has > become a problem, I believe that this is the exact opposite of a > good solution. > > Indeed, my organization has a significant problem with vendors > creating indirect POC records pointing to individuals within my > organization who are not good POCs for the space in question rather > than using our existing POC handles which we have provided to those > vendors. I've observed this same problem across multiple organizations. I agree with Owen that correcting the problem rather than punting on it is the correct direction. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ___ 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.
