Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

I agree with David. Whilst I wish people would use IPv6, RIPE tried
something similar (although didn’t truly measure operational use) and
failed miserably. They rolled back conditioning the provisioning if IPv4
resources upon IPv6 because recipients were just receiving IPv6 and never
using it...

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 29, 2019, at 05:12, David Farmer  wrote:

Those are nice words, but I don't see how ARIN can measure ”a real
commitment that organization is doing its part,” at least for most
organizations.  It is possible for some organizations, especially those
that have subjected themselves to public measurement, but I don't think it
is fair, or good policy, to effectively required public measurement of your
IPv6 progress to entitle you to receive additional IPv4 resources.

Note: the University of Minnesota participates in the World IPv6 Launch
Measurements, currently ranked 125th with an almost 62% deployment, along
with around 350 other entities. As a public institution, it is part of our
mission to participate in these kinds of activities, but even we have to
pick and choose what we participate in, no one can participate in all
such activities.

However even those measurements don't tell the whole story, most of our web
content is not IPv6 enabled at this time. I won't bore you with the
details, but suffice it to say the IT people at the University don't own
the web content, I think this is a common story. FYI, our content
management provider is moving to a new CDN later this fall, coincidentally
the new CDN is IPv6 enabled, this is happening because of market forces,
not by any planning or ability to influence planning by anyone in our
organization that even knows what IPv6 is.

Believe me, I’d like it to be as simple as tying the receiving of IPv4 to
your IPv6 deployment, but there is no simple or accurate way to measure
IPv6 deployment generally, let alone an organization’s commitment to such.
Even if there was, I'm not convinced such a policy would be effective in
increasing IPv6 deployment, and even if it would be effective, I'm further
not convinced such a policy is fair.

Thanks.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Fernando Frediani 
wrote:

> Thanks Owen for the great inputs.
>
> I would say that probably nobody would expect a 100% deployment in minimal
> details and in every device but rather a prove that it has been deployed,
> is being routed and used. In other words a real commitment that
> organization is doing its part.
>
> I think also in a eventual proposal there could be well defined exceptions
> at the discretion of ARIN's staff when properly justified the unavoidable
> limitations.
>
> Fernando
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 12:20 Owen DeLong,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the
>> only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell them
>> how to do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not.
>> Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have
>> to deploy IPv6 but I will do on my own time" ? How long more we will hear
>> things like "there is no other way out of transfer market" and "it is
>> natural thing to buy more IPv4 to be in business" and then right after
>> "Don't tell me I have to deploy IPv6".
>>
>> There have been times in the past when deploying IPv6 had challenges,
>> concerns or limitations, but now a days let's be honest, there are probably
>> none.
>>
>> In fairness, this is not entirely true. The following challenges still
>> remain in some situations:
>>
>> + Providers with a heavy reliance on MPLS for traffic engineering have
>> no good path to managing IPv6 traffic engineering with their existing tools.
>> + There are still a significant number of providers that are not
>> offering IPv6 to their customers
>> - There are workarounds for this, but they come with significant
>> tradeoffs and in some cases real costs.
>> + Human Factors
>> - Perception that NAT==Security
>> - Limited familiarly with IPv6
>> - Fear of the unknown
>> - Other priorities
>> - Perceived lack of a business case
>> - Engineers not well able to articulate the business case to the C-Suite
>> - Entrenched software base that is not yet ported, especially custom
>> internal applications and large legacy systems
>>
>> I’m not saying that these issues are insurmountable, and I’m not saying
>> we don’t need to deploy IPv6. Indeed, I’ve been beating the IPv6 drum
>> pretty hard for many years now. However, statements like “there are
>> probably no remaining challenges” do not reflect reality and reduce the
>> credibility of your other statements in this regard.
>>
>> We are in 2019, nearly 2020 and it seems there are still a significant
>> amount of people that wishes to keep supporting the transfer market rather
>> than do the obvious that we all know will make the Internet ecosystem to
>> keep evolving, perhaps with less conflicts.
>> 

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal 2019-9

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

We use our 4.10 IPs for IPv6 facilitation including customers who
don’t have IPv6 access because their ISPs are lazy and won’t deploy
IPv6 so we assign them an IPv4 for Point to point access then they use
our network for IPv6. Were also using them for border dual stack NATs,
DNS, etc.

We have a seperate need for IPv4 for our and our customers and clients
that *do not* facilitate IPv6 deployment. We must use our 4.10 IPs as
prescribed and cannot use them in an unrestricted manner as we wish.
Thus, we remain on the waiting list for a /22.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2019, at 22:23, John Curran  wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2019, at 8:37 PM, Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I am against the policy as written.
>
> Michael -
>
> It would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on your response, as the 
> ARIN Advisory Council is charged with noting “any specific concerns expressed 
> by a significant portion of the community” – without additional clarity as to 
> the reason for your opposition, it is not possible for them to know if the 
> issue is your particular concern, or perhaps more widely held.
>
> So: why are you against the policy as written?
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
>
___
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] Policy proposal 2019-9

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

I am against the policy as written.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2019, at 09:57, Rudolph Daniel  wrote:

I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
RD

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 15:50  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions
>   Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2
>   Unmet Needs Requests (Kat Hunter)
>2. Re: Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions
>   Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2
>   Unmet Needs Requests (Brian Jones)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:33:07 -0400
> From: Kat Hunter 
> To: Brian Jones 
> Cc: ARIN-PPML 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify
> Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and
> NRPM
> 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> Message-ID:
>  ucieaj6vq3yljrbkzswhqyn98whwza5gqi2zhzm2aax6...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
> moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still
> support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
> from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.
>
> Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
> Staff and Legal Review
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr
>
> "ARIN Staff Comments
>
> This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any
> organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses through a
> transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those receiving an NRPM
> 4.10 (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) assignment are
> not removed from the waiting list. The proposed change would result those
> organizations receiving an NRPM 4.10 assignment also being removed from the
> waiting list.
>
> Staff notes that adding the ??or an allocation request fulfilled under
> Section 4.10?? may be detrimental to some organizations, as address space
> received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner consistent with IPv6
> translation services and cannot be used for other purposes such as customer
> assignments, shared hosting services, etc.
>
> Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, and
> many organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to be used
> for their customer assignments but still need some IPv4 space for
> deployment of IPv6 translation services as outlined in section NRPM 4.10.
> Removing organizations from the Waiting List when they receive a NRPM 4.10
> assignment would hinder the existing IPv4 operations & growth of
> organizations, and may provide a disincentive to IPv6 deployment."
>
>
>
> -Kat Hunter
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:42 PM Brian Jones  wrote:
>
> > I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN  wrote:
> >
> >> The following has been revised:
> >>
> >> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
> >> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> >>
> >> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
> >>
> >> 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-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
> >> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources
> >> under 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

Representing ARIN member institution GLEXI-3, I am in full support of the
text as written.

Regards,

Michael Williams

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2019, at 07:05, Mike Arbrouet  wrote:

I am in full support of the proposed text as written.


Mike Arbrouet, CISSP, CISM


--
*From:* ARIN-PPML  on behalf of Alyssa Moore <
aly...@alyssamoore.ca>
*Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 3:32:35 PM
*To:* David Farmer
*Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking
Authorization Not-intended

In support. Good work on the text.

Alyssa

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:16 PM David Farmer  wrote:

> This revision deal with the issue I brought up regarding the previous
> version.
>
> I support this revised text, and it should move forward in the process.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:54 AM ARIN  wrote:
>
>> The following has been revised:
>>
>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended
>>
>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/
>>
>> 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-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> The current text of Section 2.5 of the NRPM could be interpreted as
>> implicitly giving incidental or transient users of IPv6 address space
>> the ability to use that space without the authorization of the
>> organization to which the space is delegated. This policy makes it clear
>> that such third-party use must be authorized by the organization to
>> which the address space is delegated.
>>
>> Policy Statement:
>>
>> Present Text
>>
>> Note that the incidental or transient use of address space by third
>> parties shall not be considered a reassignment or a violation of the
>> exclusive use criterion.
>>
>> Proposed Text
>>
>> Note that the authorized incidental or transient use by third parties of
>> address space delegated to an organization shall not be considered a
>> reassignment or a violation of the exclusive use provision.
>>
>> Comments: N/A
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>
>> Anything Else: The proposed text is consistent the intent expressed by
>> similar polices of other RIRs.
>> ___
>> 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.
>
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2019-8 Clarification of Section 4.10 for Multiple Discrete Networks

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

Agreed. Well said.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 15, 2019, at 15:46, Nick Bogle  wrote:

I am in favor of this change. As a company that has multiple discrete
networks that have no realistic way of connecting them, one site gets
NAT64, then another site gets NAT64, but each site has to wait 6 months
before getting this capability. No one is going to realistically announce
less than a /24, so multiple /24 allocations one per network makes a lot of
sense to me.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 11:44 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> The AC is currently considering this draft policy which would provide for
> Multiple Discrete Networks to be able to get more than one block under 4.10
> for up to 8 discrete sites within a six month period.
>
> So far, there has been little comment on the list. The AC would like to
> encourage feedback whether positive or negative in nature about this
> proposal (though always constructive in any case).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen
>
> Proposal text:
>
> Problem Statement:
> Currently, applicants for IPv4 resources under section 4.10 of the NRPM
> who do so under a single OrgID of the NRPM may only obtain one /24 every
> six months for the OrgID, even in the case where multiple discrete networks
> (MDNs) as defined in section 4.5 of the NRPM are grouped under that OrgID.
> On the other hand, where MDNs are held under different OrgIDs associated
> the same entity, the six-month constraint would apply to each discrete
> network separately. This results in unfair allocations of resources based
> solely on how entities choose to associate MDNs with their OrgIDs. This
> policy rectifies that problem by placing MDNs on an equal footing for the
> purpose of section 4.10 allocations regardless of how they are grouped by
> OrgID by the same ultimate entity.
> Policy Statement:
> Bullet 1. under section 4.10 of the NRPM is amended to read:
> the applicant may not have received resources under this policy in the
> preceding six months, except to the extent that the applicant is r
> equesting resources for a discrete network in respect of which it has not
> received any resources under this policy in the preceding six months;
> Add a new bullet 6 that reads:
> An applicant requesting multiple allocations under this policy to support
> Multiple Discrete Networks, as defined under Section 4.5, may not receive
> more than the equivalent of a /21 of IPv4 address space in any one
> six-month period hereunder.
> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> Anything Else:
> To what extent should the passage of this policy be contingent or
> independent of whether any ultimate cap is imposed on the total quantity of
> IPv4 resources that an entity can obtain under section 4.10 regardless of
> the number of OrgIDs associated with the entity or number of MDNs it holds.
>
> ==
>
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2019-8 Clarification of Section 4.10 for Multiple Discrete Networks

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

I vote in favour as well. It has a direct impact on our organisation as we
keep all our IP blocks under one OrgID and have had trouble getting access
to IPv4 for our dual stacked sites.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 15, 2019, at 14:52, Scott Leibrand  wrote:

I am in favor of this change. We should be encouraging people to use NRPM
4.10 where applicable instead of sitting on the general waiting list.

-Scott

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:44 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> The AC is currently considering this draft policy which would provide for
> Multiple Discrete Networks to be able to get more than one block under 4.10
> for up to 8 discrete sites within a six month period.
>
> So far, there has been little comment on the list. The AC would like to
> encourage feedback whether positive or negative in nature about this
> proposal (though always constructive in any case).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen
>
> Proposal text:
>
> Problem Statement:
> Currently, applicants for IPv4 resources under section 4.10 of the NRPM
> who do so under a single OrgID of the NRPM may only obtain one /24 every
> six months for the OrgID, even in the case where multiple discrete networks
> (MDNs) as defined in section 4.5 of the NRPM are grouped under that OrgID.
> On the other hand, where MDNs are held under different OrgIDs associated
> the same entity, the six-month constraint would apply to each discrete
> network separately. This results in unfair allocations of resources based
> solely on how entities choose to associate MDNs with their OrgIDs. This
> policy rectifies that problem by placing MDNs on an equal footing for the
> purpose of section 4.10 allocations regardless of how they are grouped by
> OrgID by the same ultimate entity.
> Policy Statement:
> Bullet 1. under section 4.10 of the NRPM is amended to read:
> the applicant may not have received resources under this policy in the
> preceding six months, except to the extent that the applicant is r
> equesting resources for a discrete network in respect of which it has not
> received any resources under this policy in the preceding six months;
> Add a new bullet 6 that reads:
> An applicant requesting multiple allocations under this policy to support
> Multiple Discrete Networks, as defined under Section 4.5, may not receive
> more than the equivalent of a /21 of IPv4 address space in any one
> six-month period hereunder.
> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> Anything Else:
> To what extent should the passage of this policy be contingent or
> independent of whether any ultimate cap is imposed on the total quantity of
> IPv4 resources that an entity can obtain under section 4.10 regardless of
> the number of OrgIDs associated with the entity or number of MDNs it holds.
>
> ==
>
> ___
> 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.

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

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

Oppose.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 21, 2019, at 02:56, Roberts, Orin  wrote:

Opposed!  “ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful and counter
to its overall mission”.



I would advocate a policy placing those resources for distribution under
Section 4.4 (Micro Allocations ie /24) and 4.10 ( IPv4 block facilitate to
IPv6 deployment).















*Orin Roberts *
*IP PROVISIONING*

*Bell Canada*







*From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Austin
*Sent:* June-20-19 12:29 PM
*To:* Alyssa Moore 
*Cc:* ARIN-PPML List 
*Subject:* [EXT]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



Oppose.







On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:27 AM 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 SE

  Phone: 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.

___
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:

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

I’m adjusting my earlier statement and agree with Tomas. I think the
sizes need to be adjusted to at least a minimum of a /21 for those who
are already on the waitlist. I don’t want to see the waitlist resume
until that adjustment is made.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Jun 2019, at 15:11, Tomas Lynch  wrote:
>
>> On 6/6/2019 1:20 PM, 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” obviously indicative that you’d like ARIN to proceed with its 
>> adoption and resumption of wait list issuance under its revised guidelines, 
>> and
>>  “No” being indicative that you’d rather have the suspension of wait list 
>> issuance continue unless/until some other policy change in this area reaches 
>> consensus.)
> No.
>
>> 2.  If you are not supportive of ARIN making the change specified in the 
>> revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet 
>> Requests”,
>> is there any modification to the proposed policy change that would enable 
>> you to support it?
>>
> I would support it if the following changes were made:
>
> Change 1
> 
> From: "The maximum size aggregate that an organization may qualify for at any 
> one time is a /22."
>
> To: "The maximum size aggregate that an organization may qualify for at any 
> one time is a /20."
>
> Why: I have my company on the waiting list. We could have asked for a /15, a 
> /22, or any other prefix length, however, we have checked our network needs, 
> evaluated our growth, deployed IPv6, have been careful with our IPv4 
> deployment, used RFC1918 whenever we needed, etc., and after careful 
> consideration we have requested a /20 or /21. Then, ARIN approved our plans 
> and put us on the waiting list for that prefix.
>
> I am assuming that after that problem with one particular company requesting 
> prefixes solely for the purpose of transferring, ARIN is taking several 
> measures to prevent this fraudulent behavior in the future, not only with a 
> policy but using other methods. We, the good-standing members, cannot pay the 
> price of one bad actor.
>
> Change 2
> 
> From: "...not be eligible for transfer for a period of 60 months."
>
> To: "...not be eligible for transfer for a period of 60 months. However, if 
> demonstrated, the company may transfer the resources if the company is 
> acquired, merged, etc. with another company."
>
> Why: Five years in this industry is a very long time not be acquired, merged, 
> or bought by another company. I think it needs to be explicit. Please modify 
> the text, English is not my first language.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tomás Lynch
>
>> I would ask that PPML participants take a moment to consider the proposed 
>> policy change as written and please reply regarding the questions above.
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> *From: *ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>>
>>> *Subject: **[arin-ppml] Revised - Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding 
>>> NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests*
>>> *Date: *24 May 2019 at 1:04:58 PM EDT
>>> *To: *mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
>>>
>>> At their 16 May meeting, the Advisory Council revised their recommendation 
>>> regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests.
>>>
>>> The revised recommendation is hereby submitted to the Public Policy Mailing 
>>> List for a second community discussion period of 14 days, to conclude on 7 
>>> June.
>>>
>>> Once completed, the Board of Trustees will review the AC’s recommendation 
>>> and the PPML discussion.
>>>
>>> The full text of the Advisory Council's revised recommendation is below.
>>>
>>> Sean Hopkins
>>> Policy Analyst
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Advisory Council recommendation:
>>>
>>> This is an updated version which incorporates feedback from the ARIN staff 
>>> and was approved for further community consultation at the ARIN AC meeting 
>>> on May 16, 2019.
>>>
>>> In accordance with section 10.2 of the ARIN Policy Development Process, the 
>>> ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following actions to the Board of 
>>> Trustees in response to the Board’s suspension of part of the operation of 
>>> sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 of the Numbering Resource Policy Manual:
>>>
>>> Replace 

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

If the only choice is to not issue or issue /22, I suppose resuming.

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jun 2019, at 13:30, John Curran  wrote:

Michael -

To be clear, if the only choices are status quo (no wait list issuance for
foreseeable future) or resume under the AC proposed change, you are
recommending status quo - correct?

/John

p.s.  The reason we ask in this particular manner is because we can’t
accurately gauge support or lack thereof of this particular change, if
those indicating “No” are  predicated on future conditions that may be
different or may not occur (consensus on a different size, or additional
constraints, etc.)   - Thanks!


On 6 Jun 2019, at 1:24 PM, Michael Williams 
wrote:

No. I do not support the policy as written. I believe the request size
should be increased to a /21.

Furthermore either in this policy or a seperate one should require any IP
issuances coming from the waitlist to be returned to ARIN if they are no
longer used. We should not allow IPs acquired from waitlist to be
transferred unless the company is fully acquired.

I represent ARIN member organisation GLEXI-3.

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jun 2019, at 13:20, 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” obviously indicative that you’d like ARIN to proceed with its
adoption and resumption of wait list issuance under its revised guidelines,
and
 “No” being indicative that you’d rather have the suspension of wait list
issuance continue unless/until some other policy change in this area
reaches consensus.)

2.  If you are not supportive of ARIN making the change specified in the
revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
Requests”,
is there any modification to the proposed policy change that would enable
you to support it?

I would ask that PPML participants take a moment to consider the proposed
policy change as written and please reply regarding the questions above.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


Begin forwarded message:

*From: *ARIN 
*Subject: **[arin-ppml] Revised - Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding
NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests*
*Date: *24 May 2019 at 1:04:58 PM EDT
*To: *

At their 16 May meeting, the Advisory Council revised their recommendation
regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests.

The revised recommendation is hereby submitted to the Public Policy Mailing
List for a second community discussion period of 14 days, to conclude on 7
June.

Once completed, the Board of Trustees will review the AC’s recommendation
and the PPML discussion.

The full text of the Advisory Council's revised recommendation is below.

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Advisory Council recommendation:

This is an updated version which incorporates feedback from the ARIN staff
and was approved for further community consultation at the ARIN AC meeting
on May 16, 2019.

In accordance with section 10.2 of the ARIN Policy Development Process, the
ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following actions to the Board of
Trustees in response to the Board’s suspension of part of the operation of
sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 of the Numbering Resource Policy Manual:

Replace section 4.1.8 et. seq. as follows, then reinstate the full
operation of sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 immediately.

4.1.8 ARIN Waitlist

ARIN will only issue future IPv4 assignments/allocations (excluding 4.4 and
4.10 space) from the ARIN Waitlist. The maximum size aggregate that an
organization may qualify for at any one time is a /22. Organizations will
be able to elect a smaller block size than they qualify for down to a /24.
Only organizations holding a /20 or less of IPv4 address space may apply
and be approved. Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be
eligible for transfer for a period of 60 months. This policy will be
applied to all future distributions from the waitlist to include those
currently listed.

Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not
allowed: an organization currently on the waitlist must wait 90 days after
receiving a distribution from the waitlist before applying for additional
space. ARIN, at its sole discretion, may waive this requirement if the
requester can document a change in circumstances 

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

No. I do not support the policy as written. I believe the request size
should be increased to a /21.

Furthermore either in this policy or a seperate one should require any IP
issuances coming from the waitlist to be returned to ARIN if they are no
longer used. We should not allow IPs acquired from waitlist to be
transferred unless the company is fully acquired.

I represent ARIN member organisation GLEXI-3.

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jun 2019, at 13:20, 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” obviously indicative that you’d like ARIN to proceed with its
adoption and resumption of wait list issuance under its revised guidelines,
and
 “No” being indicative that you’d rather have the suspension of wait list
issuance continue unless/until some other policy change in this area
reaches consensus.)

2.  If you are not supportive of ARIN making the change specified in the
revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
Requests”,
is there any modification to the proposed policy change that would enable
you to support it?

I would ask that PPML participants take a moment to consider the proposed
policy change as written and please reply regarding the questions above.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


Begin forwarded message:

*From: *ARIN 
*Subject: **[arin-ppml] Revised - Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding
NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests*
*Date: *24 May 2019 at 1:04:58 PM EDT
*To: *

At their 16 May meeting, the Advisory Council revised their recommendation
regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests.

The revised recommendation is hereby submitted to the Public Policy Mailing
List for a second community discussion period of 14 days, to conclude on 7
June.

Once completed, the Board of Trustees will review the AC’s recommendation
and the PPML discussion.

The full text of the Advisory Council's revised recommendation is below.

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Advisory Council recommendation:

This is an updated version which incorporates feedback from the ARIN staff
and was approved for further community consultation at the ARIN AC meeting
on May 16, 2019.

In accordance with section 10.2 of the ARIN Policy Development Process, the
ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following actions to the Board of
Trustees in response to the Board’s suspension of part of the operation of
sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 of the Numbering Resource Policy Manual:

Replace section 4.1.8 et. seq. as follows, then reinstate the full
operation of sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 immediately.

4.1.8 ARIN Waitlist

ARIN will only issue future IPv4 assignments/allocations (excluding 4.4 and
4.10 space) from the ARIN Waitlist. The maximum size aggregate that an
organization may qualify for at any one time is a /22. Organizations will
be able to elect a smaller block size than they qualify for down to a /24.
Only organizations holding a /20 or less of IPv4 address space may apply
and be approved. Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be
eligible for transfer for a period of 60 months. This policy will be
applied to all future distributions from the waitlist to include those
currently listed.

Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not
allowed: an organization currently on the waitlist must wait 90 days after
receiving a distribution from the waitlist before applying for additional
space. ARIN, at its sole discretion, may waive this requirement if the
requester can document a change in circumstances since their last request
that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of the original
request, and which now justifies additional space. Qualified requesters
whose request will also be advised of the availability of the transfer
mechanism in section 8.3 as an alternative mechanism to obtain IPv4
addresses.

4.1.8.1 Sequencing

The position of each qualified request on the waiting list will be
determined by the date it was approved. Each organization may have one
approved request on the waiting list at a time.

4.1.8.2 Fulfillment

ARIN will fulfill requests on a first-approved basis, subject to the size
of each available address block as address blocks become available for