Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Let me see (inline below) if I understand exactly what you're saying. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: > I oppose as written. > > I opposed ARIN-2015-3 and I oppose this draft policy on the same grounds. > I

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones wrote: > > Mathew, > I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources > to sit idle either. At the same time arbitrarily handing

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> > [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 4:08 PM > To: Scott Leibrand <sco

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

...@arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 Dear Colleagues, It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted. Anyone have thoughts on "Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers"? The AC would love your input. Draft policy text follows: Draft P

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 12:29 PM To: Azinger, Marla <marla.azin...@ftr.com> Cc: Rob Seastrom <rs-li...@seastrom.com>; p...@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 Reducing the burden on ARIN staff is not part of the probl

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

Networks℠ From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 4:08 PM To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> Cc: p...@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Scott Le

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of Rob Seastrom > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:46 PM > To: p...@arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > > > Dear Colleagues, > > It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted. Any

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

’s too difficult. > Then so be it. > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > > > > > *From:* Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 12:29 PM > *To:* Azinger, Marla <marla.azin...@ftr.com> > *Cc:* Rob Seastrom <rs

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

I believe we should make it easy to: 1. Make an agreement to acquire addresses in the quantity you believe you need. 2. If that agreement brings your total address holdings to less than 2x your current or 24-month projected usage, get easy approval for the transfer from ARIN under the Simplified

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Reducing the burden on ARIN staff is not part of the problem statement for > this proposal (though it might be a side effect, depending on how they > implement it). The main goal here is to reduce the

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Let me give you a real world example. > > 1. Buy rights to use addresses in any quantity you believe you need > 2. Use those addresses as you need them, assuming the agreement you made with > the party works properly >

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 16:40, John Curran wrote: > >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> Let me give you a real world example. >> >> 1. Buy rights to use addresses in any quantity you believe you need >> 2. Use those addresses as you

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On 10/5/2015 1:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: Let me give you a real world example. 1. Buy rights to use addresses in any quantity you believe you need 2. Use those addresses as you need them, assuming the agreement you made with the party works properly 3. Get an LOA from the documented

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 17:27, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >> On 10/5/2015 1:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> >> Let me give you a real world example. >> >> 1. Buy rights to use addresses in any quantity you believe you need >> 2. Use those addresses as you need them,

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

I am opposed to the proposal, for the reasons Owen and Rob describe. ___ 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:

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones bjo...@vt.edu wrote: Mathew, I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources to sit idle either. At the same time arbitrarily handing out large blocks of resources without any real show of need allows for possible

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On Aug 20, 2015, at 1:30 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Rob Seastrom rs-li...@seastrom.com wrote: 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

/divdivSubject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 /divdiv /div On Aug 20, 2015, at 1:30 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Rob Seastrom rs-li...@seastrom.com wrote: 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers IPv4 transfer

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

It looks like it is obvious, we need a new proposal that will accommodate both sides of this devide, enabling accurate record keeping, without language that encourages a positioning 'policy' that stake holders are uncomfortable with. On 15-08-20 04:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 8/20/2015

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote: ​I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two years is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being used. IMHO​ I do not understand this

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

I agree with David here. I do believe there should be a requirement that any new allocations must keep the allocation x amount of time before it can transferred. Possibly 12 months+ which would thereby kill most ideas to sell for profit. -Kevin On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, David Huberman

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On 8/20/2015 2:05 PM, David Huberman wrote: Hi Bill, Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers where ARIN no longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the attestation turns out to be untrue. So I get what you're saying. And you're right.

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On 8/20/2015 4:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: This is one of those areas where people of good conscience can disagree. I absolutely feel it is ARINs job as a steward of resources held in trust for the community to exercise due diligence in the issuance of those resources and to revoke them when

[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

Dear Colleagues, It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted. Anyone have thoughts on Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers? The AC would love your input. Draft policy text follows: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated