Should we abandon this Draft?
After the Chicago Public Policy Meeting, based upon the community's
suggestion that the AC continue to work on this Draft. I sent an email to
PPML asking for support or opposition to this Draft and received just 2
responsesboth in opposition.
I reiterate that
From the ARIN 33 meeting notes:
At the end of discussion, the moderator asked for the following straw poll
(remote participants were invited to participate). Poll results were provided
to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.
Straw poll for/against continuing work on the proposal:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
At the end of discussion, the moderator asked for the following straw poll
(remote participants were invited to participate). Poll results were provided
to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.
On 14-05-05 01:00 PM, Bill Darte wrote:
1. Yes or No. Should the community relax existing policy which attempts
to limit the transfer of ARIN resources out of region, in order to allow
an organization flexibility to move address blocks to another portion of
their own organization in another
Bill Herrin wrote:
What do you suggest as the next step?
[snip]
From my point of view, the original language works as desired.
Are you sure? I typed out an entire simplistic gaming technique so that
speculators and flippers can easily achieve their goals in the existing
language. I
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:12:50PM +, David Huberman wrote:
What do I suggest? I suggest we scrap the section altogether, as it affords
the community no meaningful protection against those who wish to game it, and
it impedes proper administration for global network operators.
FWIW,
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Herrin makes a good point: many of the ideas we've been discussing in
the context of 2014-2 are really a more general relaxation of transfer
policies, and probably should be considered separately. However, I
I support the policy in that it helps companies in the region and I do
not see any harm to any entities in the region. The problem David
Huberman is trying to solve is that there are IP's being used out of
region, and we all know out of region use has lots of geo-location
issues, and for some
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
[...]
The only thing we don't know is whether this is a one-off problem, or
whether other companies have the same issue. I would think other
companies have the same problem but are not commenting. I suspect the
people
I also realized that and prohibit LOA's without allocations needed to
be removed from the description of the policy statement, for much the
same reason as #2 below. The annotated text below has been modified to
strike-through this text as well. There are no changes to the policy
text that
In short, because as specified, the changes ended up with the NRPM being
somewhat nonsensical.
This revision does not change any of the original inent, preserves most of the
original text of the proposal, and leaves the NRPM in tact with legible text
after making the changes.
Do you have a
Estimated thirty changes to text. It appears that the AC just couldn't
resist modifying what we all agreed on en masse.
It'll take some time to evaluate all thirty plus changes. I'll reserve my
comments for the NANOG PPC in Bellevue.
Best,
-M
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Owen DeLong
Great. Digest it and then determine if you support it or not. This
proposal is the same as that which has received all the popular support
only it is now a complete, comprehensive proposal that does not leave the
NRPM in tatters.
bd
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Martin Hannigan
Support the fully fleshed out redline etc version.
-george
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
with a redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of support or
Abandon. As David Huberman pointed out, easy to game and doesn't solve the
real problem with efficient use of resources where we need them, whether
its complying with policies like the German privacy laws or embarking upon
legal and efficient financial strategies that are in compliance with the
Actually, Bill, it's not. There are significant changes in the tone and
tenor and therefore how it will be interpreted and how people familiar with
the previous iteration will now have to adapt to figure out how to satisfy
the borg with this iteration. It may appear easy, that the staff is super
Interesting estimate.
The policy text contains a total of 9 NRPM sections which are modified. I
suppose if you want to contemplate each single deletion and insertion as a
separate text change, then there are, in fact, exactly 30 total changes, but
most of them were, in fact, part of the
Owen, no one is surprised you're minimizing the changes. Of course you are.
:-) That's alright. The point here is that if this is to become law
sooner than later ARIN needs much more than the usual weak support.
The redline that you all chose to put forth appears to be little more than
lipstick
Martin -
The original proposal and this draft both seemed straightforwards (and
easily supportable) to me.
Can you please articulate in more detail what your objections are, both in
theory and in the textual changes/details?
I honestly do not currently understand what your issue(s) are. I
19 matches
Mail list logo
