On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
For opponents of the current 2013-4 text, I would love to hear whether there
are any elements of 2013-4 (or the original RFC 2050) that are missing from
rfc2050bis and would be good to document.
Hi Scott,
I wouldn't
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jason Schiller jschil...@google.com wrote:
1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
(Conservation/Sustainability)?
Yes
There also seems to be an associated concept that is has some
level of fairness That is everyone
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Chris Grundemann cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jason Schiller jschil...@google.com wrote:
1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
For anyone keeping score:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Chris Grundemann cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
(Conservation/Sustainability)?
6 of 16 respondents in favor, 9 opposed, 1 did not offer an answer
that could be
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mike Burns m...@nationwideinc.com wrote:
What about a needs-free transfer cap?
Hi Mike,
It'd have to be per-timeframe (per year). A per-transfer cap would be
meaningless. It should also start low with the expectation that it'll
grow if it proves out. And that'd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
When will we start caring about IPv6 and start ignoring IPv4???
When the people we serve start caring about IPv6 and become willing
to ignore IPv4. Can't lead where folks won't follow.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
A few years ago the BoT tried to tackle the linked-organizations
problem and got smacked down hard.
For those who don't remember it, that started here:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-March/013157.html
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
That poses a practical problem. When is a legal entity linked? Even
the courts struggle with determining whether one legal entity is
operating under control of another, and that's
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Jason Schiller jschil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Jason's closed-door partisan draft.
I appreciate this is a difficult topic.
I tried to keep this draft as simply recording the current state
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:14 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Chris Grundemann
cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
Providing false information and flooding
That's twice now you've accused me of lying. Let's put that to the test.
Here's my data: http
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Sweeting, John
john.sweet...@twcable.com wrote:
As with all policy proposals everything that is learned on the list will
be taken to the PPM in October where the AC Shepherds will share these
statistics along with other pertinent information and also take input
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Sweeting, John
john.sweet...@twcable.com wrote:
The AC has a call scheduled for this Thursday, an update will be posted
after that. I will send you an update as well if you like.
Hi John,
There's no need for a special update. Your previous non-answer bugged
me
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Mike Burns m...@nationwideinc.com wrote:
Sometimes they buy the ability to route and use the (legacy) addresses
without changing that line in the Whois database.
Now that's quite interesting,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:39 AM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
Any entity (individual or organization) requesting ARIN issued IP blocks
must provide ARIN with proof of an established legal presence in the
designated ARIN region, and have a majority of their technical
infrastructure and customers
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
It would probably be more workable if it were written as such:
Any organization requesting ARIN issued number resources or ASN's must
provide ARIN with evidence of a legally established presence in the ARIN
region.
I
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:34 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
How do we find DETENTE between the worlds of the Internet and of
nation-states? Is requiring accurate documentation in the registry of what
jurisdiction addresses are use in a reasonable start to such detente?
Hi David,
If
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:22 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
On 6/25/13 21:24 , William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:34 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
How do we find DETENTE between the worlds of the Internet and of
nation-states? Is requiring accurate documentation
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
On 6/7/13 09:16 , Chris Grundemann wrote:
1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
(Conservation/Sustainability)?
Yes, however the focus on conservation over other considerations exemplified
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Kevin Kargel kkar...@polartel.com wrote:
I do not agree that there is a requirement for a transfer market
to be possible. I strongly disagree that it is in any way part of
the ARIN charter to manipulate rules to benefit a profit motivated
transfer market.
Hi
I support this as written but have a couple of comments and suggestions.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4
RIR Principles
Did you mean ARIN registry principles or is this intended to be
offered as a global policy?
0.1. Conservation
The
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Chris Grundemann cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
The words used were carefully chosen:
Let me shed some light on why.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the insight.
Therefor, sustainability is the goal (the desired state) and
conservation is the principle (the how) used to
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Then perhaps we should ditch the word principles and stick with
goals like RFC 2050 did.
I think in this world, the ditching of principles has always
:
Bill Herrin, you are totally out of line here. Please clean it up, there
is no excuse for your rudeness below. Period.
On 7/10/13 8:47 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, William Herrin b
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com wrote:
No offense takenand I assure you that it was not a smart ass comment,
but a somewhat cynical observation of history. But I do not see how you
continue to suggest that the principles of rfc 2050 are not just that.
Hi
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
How about;
0.3. Routability
The principle of routability guarantees that Internet number resources are
managed in such a manner that they may be routed on the Internet in a
scalable manner.
Routability is maintained by
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com wrote:
should be made available to
those who need them in as fair and equitable manner as possible in a way
that aids the expansion of the Internet
Okay, now *that* is a belief system, a principle. If you want to make
a
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Chris Grundemann cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve and Tony especially seem to be opposed to their own
interpretation of what the word conservation means, rather than the
actual use here in this proposed text.
Hi Chris,
Doesn't that mean that either (A) Steve
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:03 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
I believe some form of conservation is applicable for all number
resources, even ASNs.
Hi David,
I don't agree. I'm not the only one. And prior documents on the
subject don't extend the concept beyond addresses.
I've
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Having made applications under both policy frameworks and
having been active in authoring policies on both sides of the
spectrum, I think that the needs of these two different
communities in terms of how they justify resources
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Justin Krejci jkre...@usinternet.com wrote:
Here is my newbie and possibly naive response.
Without additional details on individual cases in the list, I would expect
all of those cases to be end-users as none of them are in the business of
reallocating
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2013, at 2:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Google assignes IP addresses to its servers for SSL. Google owns the
servers. The servers cache content from other servers they don't own
and index
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:24 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
$COFFEESHOP central networking may allocate a netblock to each location, but
they're internal customers not external. One can make the case that the
individual access then makes the overall organization an ISP from
On Aug 15, 2013 11:32 AM, David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The text avoids the root of the problem trying to be
solved: the notions of ISP and end-user are
anachronisms in today's internetworking world.
In my opinion, there should be no such delineations.
Policy should treat
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
X. Resource Justification within ARIN Region
Organizations requesting Internet number resources from ARIN must
provide proof that they (1) are an active business entity legally
operating within the ARIN service region, and (2) are
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Instead, focus on the
degree to which the equipment on which the ARIN number resources are
employed is physically present within the ARIN region
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Majority is certainly more problematic than plurality. Plurality might not be
the best possible choice, either, but nobody, including myself, has yet
proposed
a better alternative. The AC would certainly welcome any improved
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:53 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN addresses
in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule doesn't do
that. It does
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
must
provide proof that they (1) are an active business entity legally
operating within the ARIN service region
Howdy,
Speaking for myself, this is unacceptable. I am adamantly, totally,
100% against this, in concept and execution.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:27 PM, John Santos j...@egh.com wrote:
Huh? Plurality is a precisely defined mathematical concept.
Hi John,
Plurality in a steady state system is easily understood.
Address management is anything but a steady state system. What do you
do when your ARIN region
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:11 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
On Sep 25, 2013, at 18:04, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It's possible that they don't need anything, in which case, they are legally
operating
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
I oppose this proposal, but did not make a motion to abandon it, because I
think it deserves a hearing from the community in Phoenix.
Hi Scott,
Of course, you're right on this point. Please consider my view
modified
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Oct 5, 2013, at 3:53 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:55 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
Since June 2013
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:31 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
You stated that the reported message (demanding certification that the
infrastructure be in-region) was part of ARIN's procedures throughout
the time period
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Reluctantly opposed as previously discussed. Would be cautiously in
favor if the dangerously vague point #4 was stripped before adoption.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-197
Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations as a Draft Policy.
ARIN will actively identify lame DNS name server(s) for reverse address
delegations associated with address
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:26 AM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote:
On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-194
Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language as a Draft Policy.
Modify 8.4:
Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer,
allocation, or
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com wrote:
What if an organization
wishes to transfer to an 'existing' subsidiaryis that the same
organization?
Howdy,
For consistency's sake with the rest of the NRPM, it is not the same
organization.
...and, is this issue
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
1) There are unanticipated consequences of the anti-flip language
that make it impossible for companies to both be truthful with
ARIN and to move blocks where they need to be.
Hi David,
You're not wrong. But
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Rudolph Daniel rudi.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
In the small Caribbean states, although there seems to be
policy to implement IXP s, many are still not getting the buy
in from existing ISP s ...so it is possible that an IXP could
get off the ground with 2 and once
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Milton L Mueller muel...@syr.edu wrote:
Draft policy 2014-1 attempts to solve a problem left over from last year.
Howdy,
As I understood the staff problem, it was that out-region
organizations were creating in-region straw-man companies to register
addresses for
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
So, there is no
way to decide this one based on real evidence, and it is hyperbole to even
ask for such evidence from either side.
Agreed.
If there are arguments for or
against that haven't been provided, please provide them
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:40 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
On 2/7/14, 16:49 , William Herrin wrote:
If I had my druthers, the policy would be simply this:
ARIN prohibits any use of ARIN-assigned number resources which is:
(A) wholly and unambiguously within another RIR's region
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. Also agree that IXPs with only a handful of participants are a
very easy low-cost renumbering scenario.
Why should the bar be as low as two or 3 participants?
Why not make the required number at least 9 or 10
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
I recently had to submit two requests, one to ARIN and one to RIPE
because of an expansion that involved an Amsterdam POP. It would have
been really nice to be able to just break off a /22 or /23 for that
location
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 2/8/2014 6:19 AM, William Herrin wrote:
If we want to manage addresses this way, we should first endeavor to pass
a globally coordinated policy to the effect that multiregional organizations
should solicit
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
On 2/7/14, 22:58 , William Herrin wrote:
You pulled a TLDR on me. Like I said at the end of the message: after
you admit that the reason you (the general you, not you specifically)
don't want this policy is that you've
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with
a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third
participant?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Apr 7, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Milton L Mueller muel...@syr.edu wrote:
absent any change in
direction, ARIN must hold to the position set at its establishment and its
in
foundational documents that all address space in the
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
1. Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment units to
/24
5. Policy statement:
Change the minimum allocation and assignment unit for all IPv4 single and
multi homed instances to /20. This would include:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com wrote:
ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
Policy statement:
Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
transfer: from The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to
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 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
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
Do you support the substantive changes in this policy?
I support Owen's original policy with the minor tweaks to deal with
the couple of things he missed.
I do not support the policy as rewritten. The rewrite is, I believe,
.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you
the night at a different address with a somewhat more restricted
egress.
-Bill
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges
. It is, after
all, trivial to anonymously buy a pre-paid debit card and forge a
fax-quality image of a driver's license.
-Bill
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking
an overlooked side effect of the change?
Now that you can get a /24 regardless of whether you're multihomed, the
multihoming language was removed.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http
Whois data wrangling into routing
filters.)
Hi John,
So along the risk line with whois at one end and spam RBLs at the other,
RPKI sounds almost identical to the risk of deploying DNSSEC. Or am I
missing something that makes RPKI more risky?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
as written. I believe it resolves an
ambiguity in ARIN policy regarding utilization of assigned blocks
prior to the most recent in a reasonable and even-handed manner.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web
.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of small.
I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of small.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
advantage over
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Dec 24, 2014, at 2:26 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a
ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the
spirit of ICP2
,
That makes my answer simple: keep doing what you're doing. No change
in policy desired.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges
anywhere with small defined as /18. Many of your opponents seem
willing to hear you out with small defined as /22. Do you want to make
progress on this issue? Any progress at all?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems
reasoning more if I tried.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
___
PPML
You
6.5.8.1 c and d are an artifact of our willingness
to accept single homed entities in to the IPv4 table, something that
made more sense two decades ago when Internet connections were
sparsely available.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:59 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I think that for now any end user willing to pay ARIN's fee
should qualify for a /48 regardless of any technical criteria.
This got me thinking. Who would choke on a policy proposal which
looked like the following?
Add
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML
Gary,
When your use case is within an inch or two the one we'd like to
prevent, 50 new routes in the table, each serving 10 people on
average, business risk kinda goes with the territory.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside
.
And as an added bonus it makes your network more reliable. ;)
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message
explaining?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:28 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Add to section 6.5.8.1:
(f) All end user organizations who do not qualify for addresses under
(a) through (e) qualify for a direct assignment of exactly one /48.
This section (f) shall expire upon determination
addresses assigned from an
upstream ISP are not suitable?
What is ARIN's experience with allocations under this policy? Have
there been any? What were the justifications?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems
it and mind the details.
This looks like a solution in search of a problem to me.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges
,
Bill herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
to be at issue.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public
are more on the negligence/fraud end
of SWIP management.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message
, and will never go beyond rattling sabers.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you
with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which
provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an in-policy
transfer.
Exactly.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems
they have an
asset, auctions it off.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you
expressing concern for the continued
orderly operation of the Internet.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an
ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would
not have to overcome
it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute
that was ever written.
Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We
live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any
legislature and most of us don't even realize it.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William
(including a transfer policy) to achieve.
It's not specific to transfer policy and doesn't drive the need for
transfer policy.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should comply with
the rules of every registry in the sequence, not just the two
registries involved
requires that.
It's an enforcement problem: ARIN is permitting transfers anyway. I
don't know what we can do about it save wagging fingers at John
Curran.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http
into the jurisdiction.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public
policy
language. Maybe asking for help is how we get policy that does what we
meant it to do.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:04 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN
business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many
times. Tell me the words
, largely allocated, and in private hands.
Sorry, what problem are you trying to solve again?
The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell
it to me even if they want to?
Possibly other problems, but at the very least that one.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 6/3/2015 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote:
The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell it to
me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the very least that
one.
Exactly. All
1 - 100 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
