Dear ARIN Community Members,
In our continuing effort to simplify the NRPM, we are also considering the
retirement of sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.
We believe that section 6.4.1 is out of scope since it constitutes a legal
conclusion regarding IPv6 addresses not constituting property, rather than
Dear ARIN Community Members,
Section 6.1 (and more particularly section 6.1.1) of the NRPM does not contain
any policy per se. Rather, it provides some background related to the
development of the policies for the allocation and assignment of IPv6 space
that are contained in the balance of
Dear ARIN Community Members,
The NRPM Working Group is now focusing its attention on Section 6 of the NRPM.
In reviewing the provisions of this Section, we have identified five areas that
could benefit from simplification. Given the recent discussions on PPML
encouraging greater participation
I am of the view that if a capitalized term is used in the NRMP it should be
defined, especially since the NRMP is not only used by experienced Community
members, but also by newcomers who need to be able to understand and apply it
to their specific needs.
With that thought is mind, if OrgID
Dear Community Members,
I have followed the discussion on participation on the mailing lists and COI
with great interest and would like to make the following observations:
1. As just one example, a party that seeks to get large quantities of IPv4
addresses can have a financial interest
The typographical error identified in a previous post relating to this draft
policy is being corrected.
The shepherds for this draft policy are very interested in knowing if there are
also any substantive comments.
Thank you.
Chris Tacit
___
Draft Policy ARIN-2020-1 can be found at
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_1/
Since this Draft Policy was placed on the AC docket very few comments have been
posted on PPML.
As we prepare for the virtual ARIN meeting in June, it would be helpful for the
shepherds to know if
Dear Community Members,
Further to the posting I made a couple of days ago regarding RDP 2017-12, I
would particularly appreciate getting answers to the following two questions:
1. If your organization uses automation to generate detailed customer
reassignment SWIPs, would it make the
Dear Community Members,
I am writing in my capacity as one of the two co-shepherds of ARIN Recommended
Draft Policy 2017-12 (RDP 2017-12).
On May 17, 2018, the ARIN AC, having successfully completed the PDP process for
RDP 2017-12, recommended its adoption by the Board.
On July 31, 2018, the
using this
message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender and destroy or delete copies you may have received.
From: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>
Sent: April 16, 2018 3:05 PM
To: Christian Tacit <cta...@tacitlaw.com>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-p
and knowledge to resolve that issue between themselves.
Chris
From: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>
Sent: March 15, 2018 4:29 PM
To: Christian Tacit <cta...@tacitlaw.com>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-12: Require POC Validation Upon
Reassignment
Dear Community Members,
The shepherds for the Draft Policy 2017-12: Require POC Validation Upon
Reassignment, are making two changes to its text.
First, the problem statement is being expanded a bit to explain how POCs for
reassigned blocks can be assigned without the knowledge of the
Dear Community Members:
The purpose of this email is to provide notice of the current status of
Recommended Draft Proposal ARIN-2015-2.
On 19 May 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced 2015-2 to Recommended
Draft Policy status.
Comprehensive information regarding the proposal is set out
le
for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly
prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying or in any way using this
message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender and destroy or delete copies you may have received.
From: Christian Ta
Dear Community Members:
I am writing to advise of some minor suggested editorial changes to the current
text of Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2. The intent is to make ensure that the
relationship between the source and recipient in the fourth bullet of section
8.4 of the NRPM is clearer. No
I am writing to advise of changes made today to the text of Draft Policy
ARIN-2015-2.
On February 9, 2016 I presented ARIN-2015-2 and the additional new proposed
language that I had circulated on PPML on January 31, 2016 at the NANOG PPC.
(The additional proposed language had received no
I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the
community regarding how (or if) we should proceed with ARIN-2015-8.
The feedback received at ARIN 36 and in subsequent AC discussions has been very
mixed and there is no community consensus for the proposal in its present
17 matches
Mail list logo
