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
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
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
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
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
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.
> >
>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Joe Provo wrote:
> 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:
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
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
> > >
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
You could use “formed” in the ASRIN region to address that concern.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 06:21 William Herrin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:50 AM David Farmer wrote:
>
>> I think additional clarification is necessary, I propose the following
>> updated policy statement to clarify
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:50 AM David Farmer wrote:
> I think additional clarification is necessary, I propose the following
> updated policy statement to clarify this issue.
>
> M activity resulting in the surviving legal entity which is not
> incorporated in the ARIN service region will be
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:
>
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
>
I think additional clarification is necessary, I propose the following
updated policy statement to clarify this issue.
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
I believe that in policy clarity is always preferable to ambiguity.
As such, I encourage clarification.
Owen
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 08:58 , Joe Provo wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello again folks,
>
> After digesting the Staff & Legal Review (
>
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
+1 Scott's comments.
Support
—
Virginia Tech
bjo...@vt.edu
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:23 PM Scott Leibrand
wrote:
> Allowing entities outside the ARIN region to continue holding addresses
> originally assigned to an ARIN-region organization to which the
> non-ARIN-region entity is a legal
+1
Owen
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 14:23 , Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> Allowing entities outside the ARIN region to continue holding addresses
> originally assigned to an ARIN-region organization to which the
> non-ARIN-region entity is a legal successor seems reasonable to me, and less
> fraught
Could someone willing to have resources form ARIN, create a company in US,
subsidiary of a company in another RIR, justify the need, get the resources,
close the US company, and following this policy keep the ARIN resources?
I still think that ARIN-2019-10 (Inter-RIR M) makes more sense than
I support. In this case, it makes more sense to let them stay at ARIN.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Allowing entities outside the ARIN region to continue holding addresses originally
assigned to an ARIN-region organization to which the non-ARIN-region entity is a
legal
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:02 AM ARIN wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
>
> 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.
>
> Add the following
Allowing entities outside the ARIN region to continue holding addresses
originally assigned to an ARIN-region organization to which the non-ARIN-region
entity is a legal successor seems reasonable to me, and less fraught than
allowing IPv6 and IPv4 waitlist space to be M transferred to another
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
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
On 5/21/19 11:02 AM, ARIN wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
Also oppose.
~Seth
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
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/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML.
27 matches
Mail list logo
