ld
wrote
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 2:47 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, my replies are inline.
>
> “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily
> provide any form
Hi Noah,
Thanks for your thoughts, my replies are inline.
“Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily provide
any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to defend this
model.”
Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a
registration”
Regards,
Mike
From: Isaiah Olson
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:07 PM
To: Mike Burns ; 'Noah'
Cc: 'ARIN-PPML List'
Subject: Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
Mike,
I would hardly say it's time for a funeral in RIPE, but I would ask, do you
I am in total agreement with your sentiment and the requirement for a circuit
should continue to stand.
Any policy that removes such a requirement would render the management of
Internet Number Resources by the registry useless and thereby essentially lead
to no need for the registry after
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 19:38:10 -0400 Joe Maimon wrote
John Curran wrote:
> ARIN Public Policy List Participants -
>
> At this point we’ve enjoyed a long and robust discussion of many topics
> ranging from merits of leasing address space to the long-term expectations
> for IPv6
get addresses.
The leasing agents you mention are getting paid for a service provided, is
there a problem there?
Regards,
Mike
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 22:29:28 -0400 William Herrin wrote
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:42 PM Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
&
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your thoughts.
May I ask if you're thinking changes with the understand that all of the
addresses being considered are going to be purchased. So really the needs tests
are besides the point. The payment of the money is the expression of need.
I myself would be uneasy at the
point has been made and
recorded.
Regards,
Mike
From: John Curran
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2021 3:19 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The
Stability Of The Internet Number Registry
To: Mike Burns
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The
Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
On 7 Sep 2021, at 1:46 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
>From my perspective as a bidder against
+1 The community elects the board. This is an important point, and a check on
executive power-grabs.
Don’t forget the the ultimate say does, in fact, lie with the community, in
that the members of the Board and the Advisory Council are elected by the
community.
While there’s
Thanks for the refreshing discussion on the inevitability of leasing and the
difficulty blocking it with policy, but if placed only in the context of the
free pool, it's just a tempest-in-a-teapot.
Nobody is going to build a leasing business on acquiring rental inventory from
the ARIN free
-the-horse revisionism. If anything, even after the transfer
ARIN had to be dragged into a modern transfer policy and significant RSA
changes.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2021 12:14 PM
To: Michel Py
Cc: Mike Burns ; Fernando Frediani
"that does not undercut the point I made which
is that for all we know, there are plenty of folks out there right now
who are holding onto their unused IPv4 space in the hopes that they will
be able to sell that in the future for more money than they can today,
due to the ever-increasing
egan.
So I said 30 years.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Dudek
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2021 5:15 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The
Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
I d
message <058401d7a013$7797d160$66c77420$@iptrading.com>,
"Mike Burns" wrote:
>We tried the method you've espoused below for thirty years and the
>result were a huge amount of wasted address space. Once the market was
>adopted, many of those addresses found a useful pl
Hi Fernando,
We tried the method you’ve espoused below for thirty years and the result were
a huge amount of wasted address space. Once the market was adopted, many of
those addresses found a useful place in the routing table.
This community had debated the option of aggressively
HI Chris and David,
I think reclaiming resources for fraud of any kind is perfectly reasonable.
I do not see any need for reporting to ARIN any change of utilization.
Unlike the AFRINIC RSA (and the LACNIC RSA) the ARIN RSA doesn't put resources
at risk for utilization, whether that's a
To: Mike Burns
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Updated text: ARIN 2020-6 Swap Policy
Inline:
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 10:46 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think the larger block should be allowed to be sold in pieces,
> notwithstanding the disaggregation.
The int
Hi,
I think the larger block should be allowed to be sold in pieces,
notwithstanding the disaggregation.
I think the recipient should lose the ability to receive addresses immediately
upon receipt of the smaller block, until the larger block is completely sold.
Including waitlist addresses,
I support the policy.
Anything that makes the NRPM easier to understand is a winner.
Even those who have received special use space and would be expected to be
"policy-sophisticated" could get tripped-up by current policy language,
whereas this change clarifies things for those members.
Regards,
er opinion they
have and others that don't agree with it or don't consider that as something
that resolves opened issues have also the right to contradict them.
Fernando
On 15/01/2021 17:21, Mike Burns wrote:
Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list.
Demeaned as
.
Aren’t we all sick of the same voices?
Regards,
Mike Burns
PS ARIN does not require resource holders use NAT, much less CGNAT.
If you feel that should be a requirement, write a policy proposal.
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Robert Clarke
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:55 PM
I support the petition.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 10:35 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board of Trustees Consideration Petition for ARIN
-2020 -2: Reinstatement of Organizations
resource-free ORG. These are colleges with old class B's who need a /24 for the
most part. They can't justify the /24 as things stand, making the rest of the
policy as written moot.
Regards,
Mike
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 17:34:41 -0500 Owen DeLong wrote
> On Dec 15, 2020, at
Hi Owen,
Thanks for spurring conversation on this proposal.
In my experience those who frequently want to acquire a small block to renumber
into are holders of much-larger blocks who can realize higher prices if they
sell their much-larger block intact. The market is rewarding larger block
that, things happen, but when it’s in our ability to mitigate
unfairness related to change without much cost, I favor doing that.
Regards,
Mike
From: Paul Andersen
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 6:11 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Jacob Slater ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose
the big guy.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jacob Slater
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 4:24 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
Mike,
There is no evidence of waiting list fraud that has reached this list except
.
The arguments about the size limits of those coming onto the list today are a
separate issue from this policy.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jacob Slater
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 3:20 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
All
Hello,
I support the policy. These people got on the list and behaved. A third
party defrauded the list and these people are punished as a result.
I feel their good behavior should not be punished, and the simple expedient
of grandfathering this limited population seems fair to me.
Discussions
architecture/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Anita N
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 9:52 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy
> ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement
Me, (okay, this is after a beer or two tonight) I was just having a
discussion with some people the other night, and we were discussing the idea
that a new protocol might even roll out at this rate before IPv6 is
universally adopted...
Hi Mike,
You aren't the only one discussing a new
Hello List,
Who cares where the expressions of support come from, or what motivates them?
If they come with arguments, regard the arguments.
If they come with a simple +1, you can weigh the value of that with your own
judgement.
This search for speaker motivations is antithetical to the
Hi Jordi,
As I mentioned on the AFRINIC list, it would not be a problem if the AFRINIC
inter-regional transfer policy retained legacy status for inbound legacy
resources from ARIN. I know this because this is an option for ARIN legacy
addresses received inter-regionally at RIPE.
So the
?
Regards,
Mike
From: David Farmer
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2020 3:36 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Fernando Frediani ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE enforcing court-ordered "right to register"
I wouldn't say RIPE took the financial transaction or the contra
ransaction the current resource
holder should only request the RIR to transfer the resources when he is sure
whatever has been agreed to be paid was already done.
Fernando
On 05/10/2020 12:36, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Thanks for your thoughts, but there is no needs test in RIPE
is that ARIN should only obey orders from a court in the
country it is registered, as other RIRs and other organizations.
Fernando
On 05/10/2020 11:38, Mike Burns wrote:
Hello List,
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ciaran_byrne/seizure-of-the-right-to-registrat
ion-of-ipv4-addresses
RIPE has
transfer.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
___
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
Why would anybody buy the rare company with a lowly /22 instead of just buying
one of the ubiquitous /22s on the market?
If the buyer is complicit in the original fraud on the waiting list, they make
themselves an obvious target for potential revocation after engaging in the
subsequent 8.2
100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Mike Burns
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:59 AM
> To: hostmas...@uneedus.com; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re
I support the policy as written and I do not believe we should prioritize
small holders over large holders.
Large holders pay higher fees but I don't see the rationale behind favoring
small holders on the wait list.
All holders should be on equal footing, we never had a new-entrant reserve
at
I would support it with the removal of the pompous and meaningless word
“summarily”.
I like a clean NRPM.
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Chris Woodfield
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Owen DeLong ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Reverted
-Original Message-
From: Lisa Liedel
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 9:05 AM
To: Mike Burns ; John Sweeting ;
arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
Hi Mike,
The 12 month waiting period is not imposed at the time of the block swap
Hi John,
Thank you.
Are they both then subject to the 12 month waiting period before another
receipt?
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: John Sweeting
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 6:36 PM
To: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing the policy report.
How do we do a block swap?
Can you provide some more details on that process and its requirements?
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of John Sweeting
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:29 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
I support this, having spoken with some of the injured parties at the last ARIN
meeting.
They suffered as a reaction to somebody else's fraud.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 1:21 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject:
I would rather eliminate the waiting list, and place this space into the
4.10 pool, as at least that space requires a commitment to IPv6.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
+1 Any pool of "free" addresses in an era of priced addresses will be a
continuing magnet for
You are forgetting that anybody can do this in RIPE today.
And yesterday.
And still the world spins.
Happy New Year to the list!
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 4:59 PM
To: Fernando Frediani
Cc:
t;032f01d590f3$0417a9d0$0c46fd70$@iptrading.com>,
"Mike Burns" wrote:
>It's not illegitimate, particularly as you are getting addresses from
>your connectivity provider, these sorts of "leases" have always been legit.
So, are you saying that the reference to "legit
Hi Ron,
It's not illegitimate, particularly as you are getting addresses from your
connectivity provider, these sorts of "leases" have always been legit.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Ronald F.
Guilmette
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 4:22 PM
To:
Albert said:
In the case of IP address leasing, the only major users of short term leases
are abusers.
HI Albert,
Care to share on your source for the assertion above?
Regards,
Mike
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are
I also agree with Bill Herrin’s perspective.
Regards,
Mike
+1
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 3:48 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> > wrote:
Same view here.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 13/10/19 9:39, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de Steven
erstanding of how those changes would affect
justifications.
I do think it would be optimal to change transfer policies to remove the needs
test, but that is a separate issue.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 10:34 AM
To: Mike
restrictions. You want less members? Raise your fees and impose harsh
policies.
It's just the nature of things.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 8:59 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'ARIN-PPML List'
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft
Hi Ralph,
I threw a /21 back in the swamp myself and I think you are right about this
discussion being circular.
Yes, I voluntarily returned them. Wonder if that makes my arguments any better…
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Ralph Sims
Sent: Tuesday, October 01,
Hi Martin,
Are we regulating for price now?
Your numbers seem accurate to me.
Regards,
Mike
From: Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 1:53 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Jim ; John Santos ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re
e suitable
accommodation to the community's needs as expressed by a growing grey-market
for leasing.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 1:31 PM
To: Mike Burns
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-
Jim wrote:
I am opposed to proposal that ARIN should in general be facilitating
entities
being able to obtain from ARIN permanent allocations made to
support temporary use for non-connected networks.It sounds like
creating an inviting environment for potential spammers and fraud, and
ganization
to another.
Fernando Frediani
On 01/10/2019 12:27, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Albert,
>
> Your first issue is a requirement for operational use as being something
> descended from heaven. It was simply the best method to fulfil our
> stewardship duties in a free pool era. That d
nistrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Mike Burns wrote:
> Albert wrote:
> It was always understood you were supposed to turn back in unused numbers.
> The market is one way to do that, by turning your unused addresses over to
> someone who can use them. Leasing does not
Should we make 2019-18 clearly say that reallocation or reassignment to
non-connected networks who will themselves make operational use of the leased
addresses is considered efficient use? Basically, keep the “use” requirement
around reassignments the same as it is now, and just state clearly
offer a
description of how hoarding would work *in this market* to a speculator's
benefit?
Regards,
Mike
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Let me address the two items highlighted in your reply below.
>
> First is the reduction of ARIN to no
Hi Fernando,
You asked me some questions so I will reply to them inline, and because we have
drifted, this will be my last post on this directly. I mentioned 2050 to
highlight the unchanging stewardship requirements, conservation and
registration, as an effort to demonstrate that your
opinion that this carrot and stick approach will induce
>> Lessors to properly register their leases while also providing a
>> clear demarcation of leasing versus hijacking that will empower our
>> community and potentially law enfor
o slurp up the dregs of the remaining free
pool at RIPE, which is reserved for new entrants.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'arin-ppml'
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18:
e question?
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 2:37 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'Fernando Frediani' ; 'arin-ppml'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
Non-Connected Networks
Like Fernando
have moved on, and any two networks can be easily “connected” for the purposes
of policy-compliance only. So why trade the lack of insight into IPv4 block
contact information for the maintenance of this fig-leaf?
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando
Hi Bill,
Off the top of my head…
There are many temporary needs that can be best met by leasing. Company
transitions, renumbering, time-limited projects.
Sometimes a company wants to test market an area.
Geolocation needs, some companies need a presence in multiple locations and
leasing
I also support the spirit of this policy, but have some questions.
Would the adoption of this policy mean that leased-out addresses would meet the
requirements to demonstrate efficient use of prior allocations when requesting
a new transfer?
Would lease contracts with Lessees meet the
[ clip ]
>From my perspective, there is no IPv4 exhaustion or shortage. Anyone can get
>almost anything they need on the transfer market. Granted, the shorter the
>prefix the harder it gets, but as it was demonstrated with 44/8 it is still
>possible. I'm not sure it is any simpler
allowing transfers intra and inter RIR is a example), but we must never forget
some principles that has always been base for correct IP space allocations.
Regards
Fernando
On 16/08/2019 10:43, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Thanks for your input.
I think you are completely wrong in your inte
as something normal or natural or first
option.
Fernando
On 15/08/2019 18:47, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Owen,
It’s hard to predict when the useful IPv4 lifetime will end, so it’s hard to
say whether runout of these reserved pools is unlikely, especially if
conditions change.
If you feel 4.4
Hi Owen,
It’s hard to predict when the useful IPv4 lifetime will end, so it’s hard to
say whether runout of these reserved pools is unlikely, especially if
conditions change.
If you feel 4.4 and 4.10 are severely overstocked, maybe a proposal to release
those “sequestered” addresses
Hi Mike,
My purpose in authoring this proposal was to starve the Waiting list to
death by preventing further unpredictable influxes of addresses.
I would support allocating returned addresses to both 4.10 and 4.4 pools, or
whichever might need them most.
I know the 4.10 pool is largely
here.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2019-8 Clarification of Section 4.10 for
Multiple Discrete Networks
I am in favor of this change. We
the idea and support the idea of placing returned and revoked
addresses in 4.10.
Actually I proposed that as a new policy a few days ago but maybe it got lost
or I filled out the template wrong.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.ne
ARIN would be a competitor AND a regulator in the marketplace.
I oppose the idea and support the idea of placing returned and revoked
addresses in 4.10.
Actually I proposed that as a new policy a few days ago but maybe it got lost
or I filled out the template wrong.
Regards,
Mike Burns
I agree with Robert and Bill that it is an illogical market distortion to
have this source of free addresses.
And that the assumption that "need" at an earlier point in time is still the
same "need" when addresses randomly come available in the future is faulty.
I would prefer to starve the
The same way there are plenty of people which find a big deviation of the use
IP space should ever have and prefer to keep this control in the hands of the
RIR so things can be done more fairly and not let them be negotiated as a kind
of real estate business.
Fernando
On 30/05/2019 14:44
and prefer to keep this control in the hands of the
RIR so things can be done more fairly and not let them be negotiated as a kind
of real estate business.
Fernando
On 30/05/2019 14:44, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
If you search “ipv4 leasing” you will find this practice widespread globally
Hi Fernando,
If you search “ipv4 leasing” you will find this practice widespread globally.
We have transitioned from the original distribution mechanism of the RIRs
before exhaust, to a new mechanism.
The new mechanism is the IPv4 market.
You are free to ignore it or tilt against
Hi Jimmy,
A few things are conflated with leasing in your comments below, including
fraud, speculation and justifications.
Let's forget about fraud. Fraud to obtain resources remains a transgression
with any lease policy.
Justification issues are fair game, I think they merit further discussion
AS in a detailed SWIP… Maybe it can be utilized to
designate the LOA recipient?
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:27 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
The portion that would be within scope as ARIN
positioned to make the call?
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:23 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
On May 29, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
Hi Scott and Fernando,
esses in such way while there are others on waiting
lists that truly justify for those addresses.
Regards
Fernando
On
29/05/2019 18:02, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Robert,
The problem of leasing space
before the 12 month waiting period, so as *o
policy.
Regards,
Mike
From: Robert Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:24 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Fernando Frediani ; arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance
Hello Mike,
Why are you using John's "waiting list IPv4 b
position on a policy is automatically discounted by the amount
he stands to gain.
I know this does not apply to you.
Regards,
Mike
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: John Curran ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks
List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance
On 29/05/2019 11:31, Mike Burns wrote:
Orgs will wait out any period, sitting with unused addresses until they reach
the resale date. Not efficient use.
If it's not a legacy resource and if ARIN gets to know about it, it may just
recover
processed through 4.1.8, so I don’t think limiting the
resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a bad idea.
Owen
On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19 size.
think limiting the
resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a bad idea.
Owen
On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19 size.
Below that, the percentages are all b
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19
size.
Below that, the percentages are all below 7%.
At /19 and above, the percentages are all above 21%.
Seems like a natural demarcation for maximum block size, but prices do
continue to rise.
While we want to fight
up to the amount equivalent to the value of the above-described
forfeitable property.
From: Chris Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:33 PM
To: Douglas Haber
Cc: Mike Burns ; Martin Hannigan ;
arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Of further interest...
I’d pres
are not recovered.
But IANAL.
From: Douglas Haber
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:27 PM
To: 'Mike Burns' ; 'Martin Hannigan'
Cc: 'arin-ppml'
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Of further interest...
I have reviewed the indictment and it has a forfeiture order in it. It lists
the blocks and states
Other shoe dropped yesterday.
https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qrySummary.pl?250341
20 counts of wire fraud.___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190514_735k_fraudulently_obtained_ip_addresses_have_been_revoked/
https://teamarin.net/2019/05/13/taking-a-hard-line-on-fraud/
From: William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 5:05 PM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re
Hi ARIN,
Will these 745,000 addresses go to the waiting list?
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:10 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Of interest?
I found this to be an interesting article and perhaps others
I found this to be an interesting article and perhaps others on the list
would appreciate knowing about it.
https://www.news-journal.com/ap/national/arin-wins-important-legal-case-and-
precedent-against-fraud/article_ceb57140-e574-5355-a8b3-c8f8c70a439e.html
Regards,
Mike Burns
Hello List,
The difference between a hijack and a lease is often a valid Letter of Agency.
Maybe it’s time for an explicit lease policy that would be within ARIN’s scope
and could chip away at some of the issues here.
Personally, I am against the proposal and agree that it is out of scope.
doesn’t rise to the level requiring significant
changes to the waitlist policy.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Rob Seastrom
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:24 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy action menu for Waiting List (4.1.8) - feedback
. That doesn’t augur well for our business.
Regards,
Mike Burns
___
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
Support. The current language confuses people and the new text is more clear to
everybody.
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:43 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposed Editorial Update to NRPM (Formerly
101 - 200 of 329 matches
Mail list logo
