From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 7 11:20:00 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Nomination Period Closes in 10 Days Message-ID: The call for nominations for the ARIN Board of Trustees, ARIN Advisory Council, and the ASO AC from the ARIN region closes at 23:59 EDT Monday, September 17. Please take the time to nominate qualified candidates for these positions. There are two open Board seats, six open ARIN AC seats, and one seat open on the ASO AC. You must be an ARIN member to make nominations for the Board and ARIN Advisory Council, however anyone from within the ARIN region may submit a nomination for the ASO AC. Nominees do not need to be ARIN members. Details and instructions on submitting nominations can be found at: ASO AC: http://www.arin.net/aso/asonom.htm ARIN Board & Advisory Council: http://www.arin.net/announcements/election.html Please direct any questions or concerns to member-services at arin.net. Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 10 11:24:00 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Forms New RFC 2050 Working Group Message-ID: At the last ARIN Open Policy meeting in San Francisco concerns were raised about RFC 2050. It was noted that this document has aged and that certain portions of it no longer reflected the current state of RIR policy and operations. Similar concerns have been raised in the APNIC and RIPE NCC regions. Accordingly, ARIN is establishing a working group to further examine this issue. Mark McFadden has volunteered to chair the 2050WG. The charter for the working group follows: The objective of the RFC 2050 Working Group is to address the issues relating to relevance of RFC 2050 to the needs of today's Internet registry system. The group will evaluate RFC 2050 and propose a method of replacing it with a new document or documents. Once consensus has emerged on the process that will be used to replace RFC 2050, the working group will cooperatively develop its replacement. The working group will work in coordination with the other Regional Internet Registries, who will conduct a similar review process in their respective regions. An email list for the 2050WG has been established. Subscription information can be found at the following URL: http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm All interested individuals are encouraged to participate in this discussion. This will be an agenda item at the next ARIN Open Policy meeting in Miami. Ray Plzak President From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 14 15:11:59 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Last Call for Nominations Message-ID: You have until 23:59 EDT, Monday September 17 to submit nominations of candidates to run for a seat on the ASO Address Council from the ARIN region, the ARIN Board of Trustees, or the ARIN Advisory Council. Please see the sites below for details on submitting a nomination: http://www.arin.net/aso/asonom.htm (ASO AC election) http://www.arin.net/announcements/election.html (ARIN BOT and AC) Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 21 15:58:03 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Discussions Message-ID: To Interested Parties: ARIN will hold its next Public Policy and Members Meeting in Miami, Florida on October 28 through 31, 2001. Meeting and registration details can be found at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/ARIN_VIII/index.html ARINs Internet resource policy evaluation process specifies that policy proposals must be posted to the ARIN mailing lists 30 days prior to an ARIN meeting where they will be discussed. ARINs Internet resource policy evaluation process is described at: http://www.arin.net/arin/policy_eval_process.html ARIN staff has received from various sources policy proposals to be discussed at the Miami meeting. Each of these proposals will be released as separate emails to the appropriate lists according to the following schedule: September 24, 2001 Morning - 1 proposal Afternoon - 1 proposal September 26, 2001 Morning - 2 proposals Afternoon - 1 proposal September 28, 2001 Morning - 1 proposal Afternoon - 1 proposal The staggered release format was chosen so as not to flood your inbox with proposals all at once. Everyone, whether a member of ARIN or not, is encouraged to participate in these discussions. Your active participation in these discussions will help to form policies that are beneficial to all. Ray Plzak President From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 24 10:57:49 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-1 Message-ID: <200109241457.KAA02357@ops.arin.net> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN public policy and members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. It is currently required all /29 and shorter reassignments be reported to the ARIN WHOIS database via SWIP or RWHOIS. It is proposed this policy be modified to require reporting for /28 and shorter reassignments only. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the public policy mailing list (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 24 17:54:18 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-2 Message-ID: <200109242154.RAA07436@ops.arin.net> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN public policy and members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. Proposal: A downstream customer's multihoming requirement will serve as justification for a /24 reassignment from their upstream ISP regardless of host requirements. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the public policy mailing list (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 26 11:17:21 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-3 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy and Members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. Proposal: Extend the existing IPv4 micro-allocation policy for exchange points, gTLDs, ccTLDs, RIRs, and ICANN to include IPv6 micro-allocations. ARIN's current IPv4 micro-allocation policy is documented at: http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html This policy proposal discussion will take place on the IPv6 working group mailing list (v6wg at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 26 11:24:08 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-4 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy and Members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. The three RIRs have compiled the proposal document provided below using feedback received from the RIR communities since the publishing of the provisional IPv6 document in 1999. In the interest of maintaining global IPv6 policies, the IPv6 policy discussion in the ARIN region will be held in conjunction with discussions taking place in the APNIC and RIPE NCC regions. When formulating this framework document, the RIRs took the following feedback into account: * The allocation criteria should be such that it is easy to obtain IPv6 address space. * The size of the initial allocation should be large enough to allow flexibility in addressing infrastructure and customer sites. This results in the following proposed IPv6 allocation criteria considerations: 1. recognize existing infrastructure (both IPv4 and IPv6) where it exists and calculate IPv6 address needs based on existing networks. 2. apply the slow start mechanism only for 'IPv6 only' networks without existing IPv4 infrastructure 3. reduce the minimum allocation size for those IPv6 only networks (unless larger requirements are shown) 4. measure the utilization rate with the HD ratio rather than percentages 5. make subsequent allocations when the HD ratio is reached The full text of the proposal document is provided below. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the IPv6 working group mailing list (v6wg at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers *** Proposal Document *** 1. Abstract This document provides a set of proposed policies for the management of IPv6 address space, specifically concerning the allocation of address space allocated by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to organisations operating IPv6 networks. 2. Overview Under the current system of management of global IP address space, Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are responsible for allocation of address space to organisations within their respective geographic regions. In 1999, the RIRs APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC published a provisional policy document for IPv6, which has been in operation since then. Since 2000, this document has been under review and discussion, and through this process many issues have been raised. It is the aim of this document to propose a new policy framework for IPv6 address space management which takes into account the operational experience of the past 3 years, and addresses most if not all of the major issues raised through the open review process. This document does not attempt to provide details of policy implementation, procedures or documentation; nor does it document requirements for management of address space which is allocated. These policies can be established globally or regionally as appropriate, based on global consensus regarding the fundamental principles described here. 3. Address Space Requirement for Initial Allocation It is proposed to recognise existing network infrastructure and address utilisation (both IPv4 and IPv6). New IPv6 address needs are then based on these existing networks. In assessing a request for an initial allocation, there are 3 possible cases to consider: 3.1. the requesting organisation has an existing IPv4 network which will be addressed by the new IPv6 allocation 3.2. the requesting organisation has an existing IPv6 network 3.3. the requesting organisation has no network at all 3.1. Case 1 - Existing IPv4 services Where IPv6 address space is requested for addressing an existing IPv4 network, the address requirement is determined according to the structure and customer base of the existing IPv4 network. This only relates to the part of the network that will be migrated to IPv6. Additional policies may require the return of IPv4 address space to the RIR or upstream ISP, in the case the existing network is renumbered to the new IPv6 space in future. 3.2. Case 2 - Existing IPv6 services Where an IPv6 allocation is requested by an organisation to address infrastructure which is already addressed by IPv6 addresses from an upstream provider (or from the 6BONE), the address requirement is determined from the number of site addresses assigned by the organisation (as registered in the appropriate whois database). Where existing address space is no longer used, it must be returned. 3.3. Case 3 - No existing IPv4 or IPv6 services Where IPv6 address space is required by an organisation which has no existing infrastructure, the address requirement will be assessed according to network architecture plans and other documentation provided to the RIR within the request process. Such documentation be thorough enough to satisfy the RIR that the network deployment is genuine, however the specific details of documentation requirements will be defined separately. 4. Size of Initial Allocation The amount of addresses allocated to an existing network, will be determined based on the existing infrastructure and address utilisation of that network. For new networks without existing infrastructure, it is proposed to establish a minimum allocation for IPv6 address space. It is suggested to keep the size of the initial allocation relatively small (a /35 or smaller) and to determine the size of subsequent allocations based on the utilisation rate of the initial allocation (this is called slow start mechanism). This will allow easy access to IPv6 allocations for newcomers. At the same time possible wastage of address space and routing table growth will be limited. 5. Qualification for Subsequent Allocation An organisation which has already received address space from an RIR may receive a subsequent allocation providing that its existing address space is utilised in accordance with these policies. As explained below, the HD-Ratio will be used to measure utilisation of the existing address space. An organisation which is deploying substantial new network infrastructure may receive a subsequent allocation before it has reached the required utilisation threshold, providing that the address requirement would immediate cause the organisation to exceed the utilisation threshold. In such cases, the new network infrastructure will be examined by the RIR as if it is a request for a new network, and the RIR may require the same level of documentation detail, in order to approve the allocation. 6. Address Space Requirement for Subsequent Allocation For subsequent allocations, the RIR should assess the address requirement according to the organisation's history of IP address usage, as well as its stated requirements for future development. In general, the RIR should provide address space for a fixed time period of 2 years. The above recommendation should be followed in cases where the organisation concerned has complied with all relevant address management policies. In other cases, the RIR may allocate for a shorter future timeframe, and require that identified problems be rectified before larger allocations are made. 7. IPv6 Utilisation Metric: the HD-Ratio In IPv4, currently, a "utilisation threshold" of 80% is applied consistently in determining whether an IPv4 address pool is to be considered utilised, regardless of the size of that block. Consequently, an organisation which holds IP address space may not receive additional addresses until it has utilised at least 80% of the address space held. For IPv6 is it proposed to assess utilisation according to the "HD-Ratio" rather than by a simple percentage. The HD-Ratio was proposed by Durand in "draft-durand-huitema-h-density-ratio-01.txt" (an adaptation of the original H-Ratio defined by Huitema in RFC-1715). Using the HD-ratio we can establish a utilisation metric which allows percentage utilisation to decrease as the address space grows large. This is appropriate for management of the much larger blocks of address space under IPv6, and the likelihood of complex routing and allocation hierarchies within those address blocks. More details about the HD ratio can be found in Appendix A. Appendix A: In the general case, where individual objects are allocated out of an arbitrary address space, the HD-Ratio is calculated as follows: log(number of allocated objects) HD = -------------------------------------------- log(maximum number of allocatable objects) Where the objects being allocated are IPv6 site addresses (/48s) assigned from an IPv6 prefix of length P, we can restate this formula as follows (where A is the number of /48 prefixes actually assigned): log(A) log(A) In other words, the utilisation threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /48 prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as: ((48-P)*HD) T = 2 In accordance with the recommendations of draft-durand-huitema-h-density-ratio-01.txt, it is proposed in this draft to adopt an HD-Ratio of 0.8 as the utilisation threshold for IPv6 address space allocations. The following table provides equivalent absolute and percentage address utilisation figures for IPv6 prefixes, corresponding to an HD-Ratio of 0.8 P 48-P Total /48s Threshold Util% 48 0 1 1 100.0% 47 1 2 2 87.1% 46 2 4 3 75.8% 45 3 8 5 66.0% 44 4 16 9 57.4% 43 5 32 16 50.0% 42 6 64 28 43.5% 41 7 128 49 37.9% 40 8 256 84 33.0% 39 9 512 147 28.7% 38 10 1024 256 25.0% 37 11 2048 446 21.8% 36 12 4096 776 18.9% 35 13 8192 1351 16.5% 34 14 16384 2353 14.4% 33 15 32768 4096 12.5% 32 16 65536 7132 10.9% 31 17 131072 12417 9.5% 30 18 262144 21619 8.2% 29 19 524288 37641 7.2% 28 20 1048576 65536 6.3% 27 21 2097152 114105 5.4% 26 22 4194304 198668 4.7% 25 23 8388608 345901 4.1% 24 24 16777216 602249 3.6% 23 25 33554432 1048576 3.1% 22 26 67108864 1825677 2.7% 21 27 134217728 3178688 2.4% 20 28 268435456 5534417 2.1% 19 29 536870912 9635980 1.8% 18 30 1073741824 16777216 1.6% 17 31 2147483648 29210830 1.4% 16 32 4294967296 50859008 1.2% 15 33 8589934592 88550677 1.0% 14 34 17179869184 154175683 0.9% 13 35 34359738368 268435456 0.8% 12 36 68719476736 467373275 0.7% 11 37 137438953472 813744135 0.6% 10 38 274877906944 1416810831 0.5% 9 39 549755813888 2466810934 0.4% 8 40 1099511627776 4294967296 0.4% 7 41 2199023255552 7477972398 0.3% 6 42 4398046511104 13019906166 0.3% 5 43 8796093022208 22668973294 0.3% 4 44 17592186044416 39468974941 0.2% 3 45 35184372088832 68719476736 0.2% 2 46 70368744177664 119647558364 0.2% 1 47 140737488355328 208318498661 0.1% 0 48 281474976710656 362703572709 0.1% From ginny at arin.net Wed Sep 26 11:36:08 2001 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RWHOIS Update Message-ID: At the ARIN Open Policy and Member Meeting in San Francisco (2-4 Apr 2001) there was consensus that RWHOIS was in dire need of repair. This echoed similar sentiments that had been raised on various mail lists. In response to this desire, work begun on "fixing" RWHOIS. On September 6, ARIN's Engineering Department announced the release of a beta version of the RWHOIS software. Details are at: http://www.arin.net/mailinglist/dbwg/0153.html Since that time, there has been approximately 30 downloads from our ftp site. I have receive only one comment from someone who had problems compiling the software. My questions to the community are: 1. Is RWHOIS an option for your company to replace SWIP? 2. If you haven't download it yet, do you plan on downloading at a later time? Are you busy establishing a test site? 3. If you have downloaded it, have you done any testing? Have you found any bugs? Can you make any recommendations for improvement? 4. Is investing in RWHOIS development a good allocation of ARIN Engineering resources? These issues will be discussed at the ARIN Member Meeting scheduled for late October in Miami. However, discussing these questions now will help facilitate that discussion. Please send all responses to dbwg at arin.net. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From ginny at arin.net Wed Sep 26 13:01:44 2001 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RWHOIS Update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > http://www.arin.net/mailinglist/dbwg/0153.html > > > > Bad URL :) > Sorry. Make that: http://www.arin.net/mailinglists/dbwg/0153.html Ginny From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 26 15:24:00 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-5 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy and Members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. Proposal: Establish a micro-assignment policy that would allow entities, using multihoming as justification, to obtain an assignment from ARIN longer than the current minimum assignment size of a /20. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the public policy mailing list (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 28 10:55:10 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-6 Message-ID: <200109281455.KAA04036@ops.arin.net> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy and Members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. The policy proposal stated below addresses how ARIN reviews IP address space requests from single organizations with large multi-homed discrete networks. This issue was discussed at the last ARIN public policy meeting and has since been discussed on the public policy mailing list. The archives for this mailing list are located at http://www.arin.net/mailinglists/ppml/index.html This policy proposal discussion will continue to take place on the public policy mailing list (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers **Proposed Allocation Policy for: Single organizations with large multi-homed discrete networks ARIN currently has an allocation policy that is 'blind' to route Filtering and global routablity, yet in order for address space to be usable it must be accepted and routed by the community at large. This fact can create allocation concerns for organizations that have multiple discrete multi-homed networks. Organizations may design their networks in this manner for a number of reasons including regulatory restrictions (Federal FCC mandated inter-lata restrictions), geographic diversity/distance between networks, and routing policy. Current RIR allocation policy requires that before a single organization can obtain additional address space it must show 80% utilization (through SWIP or rWhois) per RFC 2050. Currently, some organizations have circumvented this requirement by Creating "multiple maintainers" with ARIN and request address space for networks as though they were separate organizations. This practice creates both practical and financial concerns for ARIN. In practice it appears that organizations can just 'buy' additional address space without regard to utilization on other networks and this in turn increases ARIN's revenue dependence on a small number of organizations. Current allocation requirements can become unreasonable when operating a set of discrete networks for organizations which intend on following the current allocations policy. Discrete networks must often have separate unique globally routable address space and will often grow at different rates. This growth differential can lead to a situation where one discrete network is completely allocated but another network has not yet been fully utilized. Under the current allocation policy the organization would need to Request additional address space from the RIR; however, given a strict interpretation of the existing policy, the RIR may not be able to grant additional address space to the organization, due to the 80% utilization requirement. This constraint can easily be seen when you consider an organization with two geographically discrete autonomous networks. The organization initially requested a /19 from the RIR for its two networks with the intent to route a single /20 from each network. Network A's utilization grows considerably faster than Network B. Network A is currently showing 90% utilization and needs additional address space for new customers being added to this network. Network B's address space is being utilized but currently only shows 40% utilization. This would produce an allocation utilization percentage of 65% which is below the requirement for additional address space by a RIR. We propose for organizations which meet the following criteria to be granted the opportunity to request additional address space under the requirements listed below. Criteria for the application of this policy: * The organization should be a single entity, and not a consortium of smaller independent entities. (Example: Not a group of independent network operators who form a group specifically for this policy) * This policy applies only to organizations that have been previously granted address space by an RIR. This policy does not apply to organizations with only legacy address space. * The organization must have multiple (at least two) discrete multi-homed networks. * The organization must have a compelling criteria for creating discrete networks. Examples: 1) regulatory restrictions for data transmission 2) geographic distance and diversity between networks 3) autonomous multi-homed discrete networks * The organization must apply for this policy to be applied to their account. * Organizations with 'multiple maintainers' should request that this policy apply to their accounts, their existing allocations merged, and additional allocations will fall under this policy. * Upon adoption the use of 'multiple maintainers' for a single organization should not be permitted. These organizations should then use this policy to govern additional allocations. Requirements for additional allocations from RIR: * The organization must record allocations or assignments down to the /29 level for all downstream networks via rWhois, SWIP, or approved RIR public database. * The organization must keep detailed records of how it has allocated space to each discrete network. This should include the block allocated, any reserved blocks, and date of allocation. The allocation information should also be present in a public database via a routing registry, rWhois, or via SWIP. * The organization must not allocate additional space to a discrete network unless all the blocks allocated to that network show utilization greater than 80% individually and as a whole. * The organization must not allocate a CIDR block larger than the current minimum assignment size of the RIR (currently /20 for ARIN) to a new network. * The organization must not allocate an additional CIDR block larger than the current minimum assignment size of the RIR (currently /20 for ARIN) to an existing network, unless previous growth rates for that network indicate that it is likely to utilize a larger CIDR block before the time the organization will be requesting an additional block from the RIR. The suggested minimum allocation size for an additional block for a network is the current minimum assignment size of the RIR. * When allocating a block larger than the minimum assignment size to an existing network the organization should use the smallest allocation possible out of a larger reserved block. This requirement is to reduce the number of routes the organization will announce from that autonomous system. Example: A fast growing network is allocated a /20 out of a reserved /19, when the /20 is 80% utilized the announcement is expanded to a /19 and the /20 announcement is removed. This practice also allows the reserved /20 to be used by another discrete network should the 'fast growing network' not use the address space as anticipated. * When applying for additional address space, from an RIR, for new networks or additional space for existing networks the organization must show greater than 50% utilization for the last block granted by the RIR and their allocations as a whole. * The organization must follow guidelines of RFC 2050 (or its replacement) and the policy of the granting RIR for allocations that are assigned or allocated to downstream networks. This includes record keeping of allocation requests and network utilization documents for audits by the RIR. From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 28 13:16:32 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2001-7 Message-ID: <200109281716.NAA20688@ops.arin.net> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy and Members meetings in Miami, scheduled for October 28 - 31, 2001. All feedback received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place in Miami. ARIN currently provides a bulk copy of WHOIS output only to organizations that will use the data for technical research purposes and sign an acceptable use policy. Point of contact information is excluded from these bulk copies. APNIC and RIPE NCC provide bulk copies of their WHOIS output on their FTP sites for any organization that wishes to obtain the data providing they agree to the acceptable use policy that accompanies the data. Proposal: It is proposed ARIN provide a bulk copy of WHOIS output, minus point of contact information, on the ARIN FTP site for download by any organization that wishes to obtain the data providing they agree to ARIN's acceptable use policy that would accompany the data. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the database working group mailing list (dbwg at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 28 17:26:05 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ASO AC Candidates Announced Message-ID: The following individuals have been nominated to run for the open seat on the ASO Address Council in the ARIN region, becoming vacant with the expiration of Raimundo Beca's term on December 31, 2001. The seat is a three year term expiring December 31, 2004. Timothy J. Biggs Dewey Coffman Eric B. Decker Christopher Faulkner Greg Hiscott Rob Leon Peter Schroebel Candidate bios and a form for voicing support can be found on the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/aso/asonominees.htm The ASO AC election will begin online for ARIN members at 9:00 AM EDT October 22,and will close at 6:00 PM, October 29. All attendees at the October 29 ARIN Public Policy meeting in Miami, FL will be eligible to vote onsite. The winner will be announced on October 30. Ray Plzak President From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 28 17:30:51 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Board of Trustee Candidates Announced Message-ID: The following individuals have been placed in nomination by the ARIN Nominating Committee to run for two open seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees. Michael Straty's term expires on December 31, 2001 and the second open seat is newly created by the Board. These are three year terms beginning January 1, 2002. Ted Hardie Trent R. Hein Lee Howard David Huberman Bill Manning Mark McFadden Michael H. Straty Patrick Sweeney Candidate bios and a form for voicing support can be found on the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/election/botbios.html All candidates are invited to make a brief presentation at the ARIN VIII Members Meeting, October 31 in Miami, FL. Electronic elections open at 9:00 AM EST, November 6 and close at 9:00 AM EST, November 13. The winners will be announced by November 16. Each member has one designated member representative who is eligible to cast one vote. ARIN must have this individual's name and personalized email on record. Contact member-services at arin.net if you wish to verify this information. Ray Plzak President From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Sep 28 17:32:41 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Advisory Council Candidates Announced Message-ID: The individuals below have been nominated to run for one of the six open seats on the ARIN Advisory Council beginning January 1, 2002. Five of the seats are for three years, and the individual receiving the sixth greatest number of votes will serve a two-year term. Current AC members whose terms are expiring December 31 include: Steve Corbato, Tony Li, Bill Manning, Justin Newton and Guy Middleton. Abha Ahuja Bob German Cathy Wittbrodt Charles Smith Dawn Martin Jim Pickrell John M. Brown Lyric Apted Mohamed A Hirse Ron da Silva Sanford George Trevor Paquette Candidate bios and a form for voicing support can be found on the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/election/acbios.html All candidates are invited to make a brief presentation at the ARIN VIII Members Meeting, October 31 in Miami, FL. Electronic elections open at 9:00 AM EST, November 6 and close at 9:00 AM EST, November 13. The winners will be announced by November 16. Each member has one designated member representative who is eligible to cast one vote. ARIN must have this individual's name and personalized email on record. Contact member-services at arin.net if you wish to verify this information. Ray Plzak President From memsvcs at arin.net Sat Sep 29 09:33:17 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fall Issue of ARIN Today Available Online Message-ID: The second issue of ARIN's quarterly newsletter, ARIN Today, is now available in pdf format online at: www.arin.net/ See the announcement link. Comments concerning the newsletter and expressions of interest in submitting articles for future editions should be sent to member-services at arin.net Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services