From iis-arin at impulse.net Thu Oct 9 16:06:43 2008 From: iis-arin at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:06:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Spam from infoweapons.com to ARIN role account Message-ID: <48EE6453.3060006@impulse.net> I just got spammed from this outfit touting some type of DNS appliance to an address used solely for ARIN-related business transactions. Am I alone here? Anyone else getting this? From ser at layer42.net Fri Oct 10 15:38:14 2008 From: ser at layer42.net (Steve Rubin) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:38:14 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Spam from infoweapons.com to ARIN role account In-Reply-To: <48EE6453.3060006@impulse.net> References: <48EE6453.3060006@impulse.net> Message-ID: <48EFAF26.4090202@layer42.net> Jay Hennigan wrote: > I just got spammed from this outfit touting some type of DNS appliance > to an address used solely for ARIN-related business transactions. > > Am I alone here? Anyone else getting this? > > Nope, We got this too. -- Steve Rubin ser at layer42.net Layer42 Networks http://www.layer42.net/ Expect More from A Web Solutions Provider (408)450-5742 From jrhett at svcolo.com Sat Oct 11 19:18:59 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:18:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] sorbs and arin assigned space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you persist with them you'll eventually get a fix. It takes a few weeks though. On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Joe Pruett wrote: > we recently got a block of ip space from arin and since it was > previously > unused, it is on the sorbs blacklist as dynamically assigned. i > have been > trying for weeks to get sorbs to remove the listing since there are > mail > servers out there that use any response from sorbs as a definitive > blacklist. > > sorbs has a robot that looks at reverse dns and doesn't like my > setup (i > had already started assigning things before i found out about the > sorbs > listing). i don't want to go back and redo it all just to get off > some > stupid blacklist. > > so, i'm hoping that someone else out there has run into this as well > and > has found someone who can take action at sorbs. the web hits i've > found > don't give me much hope, though. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From jrhett at svcolo.com Sat Oct 11 19:22:54 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:22:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] bring copies of pre-ARIN IP allocations to ARIN please. Message-ID: <38DCCDC8-7367-4DDD-822C-578498AB7163@svcolo.com> There have been quite a number of people making all sorts of claims about "rights" given to them in their pre-ARIN allocations. Several of these people would have been in middle school when I started getting IP allocations, and I don't remember any documentation of these "rights". But since I don't have copies of any pre-ARIN allocations (organizations I've worked with became proper ARIN members quickly), I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone would bring copies of their pre- ARIN allocation paperwork to the ARIN conference. Let's make the facts clear in this situation. Thanks. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From ml at t-b-o-h.net Sat Oct 11 19:45:13 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] bring copies of pre-ARIN IP allocations to ARIN In-Reply-To: <38DCCDC8-7367-4DDD-822C-578498AB7163@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <200810112345.m9BNjEX5002152@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > There have been quite a number of people making all sorts of claims > about "rights" given to them in their pre-ARIN allocations. Several > of these people would have been in middle school when I started > getting IP allocations, and I don't remember any documentation of > these "rights". > > But since I don't have copies of any pre-ARIN allocations > (organizations I've worked with became proper ARIN members quickly), > I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone would bring copies of their pre- > ARIN allocation paperwork to the ARIN conference. Let's make the > facts clear in this situation. > > Thanks. > My dog ate it........................ ;) Besides, wasn't paperwork, it was the oh-so-fun email templates. Its been over 7 years, so we toss anything older than that normally. (Including the backups of all my emails in/out) My first allocation was Jan 6 1992, my second just had its birthday being "RegDate"'d on October 10, 1994. I've got proof that I followed the procedures to request and be granted ownership of a few TLDs though, but that never happened. (Search for "Postel Ellentuch" - But then again thats IANA) Maybe someone can get a copy of the template and website off the Wayback machine to see what was being said at the time. Tuc/TBOH (PS - Besides the fact I just received the email asking me officially to review the RSA, where is this email originating?) From jrhett at svcolo.com Sat Oct 11 21:36:24 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:36:24 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] sorbs and arin assigned space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you persist with them you'll eventually get a fix. It takes a few weeks though. On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Joe Pruett wrote: > we recently got a block of ip space from arin and since it was > previously > unused, it is on the sorbs blacklist as dynamically assigned. i > have been > trying for weeks to get sorbs to remove the listing since there are > mail > servers out there that use any response from sorbs as a definitive > blacklist. > > sorbs has a robot that looks at reverse dns and doesn't like my > setup (i > had already started assigning things before i found out about the > sorbs > listing). i don't want to go back and redo it all just to get off > some > stupid blacklist. > > so, i'm hoping that someone else out there has run into this as well > and > has found someone who can take action at sorbs. the web hits i've > found > don't give me much hope, though. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From jrhett at svcolo.com Sat Oct 11 21:38:48 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:38:48 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] bring copies of pre-ARIN IP allocations to ARIN In-Reply-To: <200810112345.m9BNjEX5002152@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> References: <200810112345.m9BNjEX5002152@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: <6BB98BC7-04CE-4E28-85CA-B11327882E9A@svcolo.com> On Oct 11, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Tuc wrote: > Besides, wasn't paperwork, it was the oh-so-fun email > templates. Yah, the Verisign days. But the templates had text saying things about the assignment and what you needed to be assigned, and how you could lose it, etc. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From ml at t-b-o-h.net Sat Oct 11 22:01:48 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] bring copies of pre-ARIN IP allocations to ARIN In-Reply-To: <6BB98BC7-04CE-4E28-85CA-B11327882E9A@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <200810120201.m9C21msL065390@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > On Oct 11, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Tuc wrote: > > Besides, wasn't paperwork, it was the oh-so-fun email > > templates. > > Yah, the Verisign days. But the templates had text saying things > about the assignment and what you needed to be assigned, and how you > could lose it, etc. > Internic... "The InterNIC is a cooperative activity between the National Science Foundation, Network Solutions, Inc. and AT&T. Explore employment opportunities at the InterNIC, or read news and announcements. Network Solutions sponsors Registration Services, Support Services, and Net Scout Services. AT&T supports Directory and Database Services." Do you have a copy of the template or a pointer online. I've checked : http://docs.rinet.ru/MIIS/ch4.htm - Network Version Number 2.0 of the template ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/internet-number-template.txt that I could find still searchable. It might have been hacked up for that presentation. ftp://ftp.stben.net/pub/rfc/internic-ip-1.txt - Version 1.0 of the "INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS" ftp://ftp.stben.net/pub/rfc/internic-ip-2.txt - Version 2.0 of an NDA for "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH IP ADDRESS ALLOCATION" I think I sent in to Kim Hubbard. http://web.archive.org/web/19961220083042/http://rs.internic.net/ - Wayback copy of the rs.internic.net from LATE 1996.I checked under Registration Services in "About Registration Services and the InternNIC", "Help desk/policies" and "Registration Forms" and I couldn't find anything about losing them. As best I can see for requirements, besides those outlines in the internet-number-template.txt that I saw a copy online of, is : "Network number assignments are made when a network POC (point of contact) completes the template in ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/internet-number-template.txt and returns the template to hostmaster at internic.net." You also have to remember, this was back when the net way young, as was I. :) Our society wasn't as litigious as it is now, and the net was still a bit untamed. They probably figured that "The InterNIC Registry, under the authority of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, allocates blocks of IP address space to Internet Service Providers (ISP) for the purpose of using that space with their customers." was the bulk of the legalese they needed to put in. Tuc From jrhett at svcolo.com Sun Oct 12 21:18:03 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:18:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <200810120201.m9C21msL065390@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> References: <200810120201.m9C21msL065390@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: <6DD44BD9-30EB-4232-A077-DE2C601966D8@svcolo.com> Thanks, Tuc for the references. However I found nothing here I didn't already have. So barring any pre-NetSol allocations, there is absolutely nothing in any of these documents that 1. Grants any explicit rights to the assignee (I'll leave discussion of implicit rights to Lawyers) 2. Guarantees that any specific services will be provided (ie whois and in-addr.arpa) 3. Explicitly limits assumption, term of agreement (other than non- payment) or defines severability in either direction. As noted above, lawyers would have to argue about implicit rights granted or implicit term. I dunno. But the net effect of what I am saying is that I just don't see anything standing out here giving any implicit rights. So I'd appreciate anyone who can document these rights explicitly for everyone to see. On Oct 11, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Tuc wrote: >> On Oct 11, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Tuc wrote: >>> Besides, wasn't paperwork, it was the oh-so-fun email >>> templates. >> >> Yah, the Verisign days. But the templates had text saying things >> about the assignment and what you needed to be assigned, and how you >> could lose it, etc. >> > > Internic... "The InterNIC is a cooperative activity between the > National Science Foundation, Network Solutions, Inc. and AT&T. > Explore employment opportunities at the InterNIC, or read news and > announcements. Network Solutions sponsors Registration Services, > Support > Services, and Net Scout Services. AT&T supports Directory and > Database Services." > > Do you have a copy of the template or a pointer online. I've > checked : > > http://docs.rinet.ru/MIIS/ch4.htm - Network Version Number 2.0 of the > template ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/internet-number-template.txt > that I could find still searchable. It might have been hacked up for > that presentation. > > ftp://ftp.stben.net/pub/rfc/internic-ip-1.txt - Version 1.0 of the > "INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS" > > ftp://ftp.stben.net/pub/rfc/internic-ip-2.txt - Version 2.0 of an > NDA for "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH IP ADDRESS > ALLOCATION" > I think I sent in to Kim Hubbard. > > http://web.archive.org/web/19961220083042/http://rs.internic.net/ - > Wayback copy of the rs.internic.net from LATE 1996.I checked under > Registration Services in "About Registration Services and the > InternNIC", > "Help desk/policies" and "Registration Forms" and I couldn't find > anything > about losing them. As best I can see for requirements, besides those > outlines in the internet-number-template.txt that I saw a copy online > of, is : > > "Network number assignments are made when a network POC (point of > contact) > completes the template in ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/internet-number-template.txt > and returns the template to hostmaster at internic.net." > > You also have to remember, this was back when the net way young, as > was > I. :) Our society wasn't as litigious as it is now, and the net was > still a bit untamed. > They probably figured that "The InterNIC Registry, under the > authority of the Internet > Assigned Numbers Authority, allocates blocks of IP address space to > Internet Service > Providers (ISP) for the purpose of using that space with their > customers." was the > bulk of the legalese they needed to put in. > > Tuc -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From ml at t-b-o-h.net Sun Oct 12 22:25:33 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <6DD44BD9-30EB-4232-A077-DE2C601966D8@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <200810130225.m9D2PXUx023285@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > But the net effect of what I am saying is that I just don't see > anything standing out here giving any implicit rights. So I'd > appreciate anyone who can document these rights explicitly for > everyone to see. > I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. Some of what I say could even be hurting the case of the people you are talking about (Such as me). Its definitely something better suited for lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did anything for such a long time, why now?" The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established in December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to start this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98? Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings a year. I guess I also go back to what was it that made you start this thread? It seemed that discussion died down a while back and I didn't notice anything here that would have restarted it. (Except the weird timing that I recieved the notification from ARIN recently also that they wanted to bring 2 24's I have into the Legacy RSA) Thanks, Tuc From ml at t-b-o-h.net Sun Oct 12 23:15:29 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <6DD44BD9-30EB-4232-A077-DE2C601966D8@svcolo.com> from "Jo Rhett" at Oct 12, 2008 06:18:03 PM Message-ID: <200810130315.m9D3FT2v043478@vjofn.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > But the net effect of what I am saying is that I just don't see > anything standing out here giving any implicit rights. So I'd > appreciate anyone who can document these rights explicitly for > everyone to see. > Hi, (Wondering why I'm the only one replying to these... Is it a troll and I missed it? ;) Again, not sure if this helps/hurts my case... but.... http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html 4.1.7. RFC 2050 ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and procedures set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines were developed to meet the needs of the larger Internet community in conserving scarce IPv4 address space and allowing continued use of existing Internet routing technologies. (It could be said that "4.2.1.2. Annual Renewal" mentions "An annual fee for registered space is due by the anniversary date of the ISP's first allocation from ARIN.".... Since it was never allocated by ARIN, then there isn't an anniversary date. ;) ) and then at : http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2050.html (Co-authored by 2 InterNIC people in Nov 1996) 5. In-ADDR.ARPA Domain Maintenance The regional registries will be responsible for maintaining IN- ADDR.ARPA records only on the parent blocks of IP addresses issued directly to the ISPs or those CIDR blocks of less than /16. Local IRs/ISPs with a prefix length of /16 or shorter will be responsible for maintaining all IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for its customers. IN-ADDR.ARPA resource records for networks not associated with a specific provider will continue to be maintained by the regional registry. (I realize this is a small piece of it, but I just happened to notice this trying to find boring reading to put me to sleep tonite) So if ARIN follows 2050, and 2050 says In-addr.arpa needs to be maintained by regionals, and ARIN is a regional............. Anyway, not looking to lead the cause on this end for it. (Wheres Dean when ya need him? ;) ) Just more startled by it being brought up. Tuc/TBOH From ml at t-b-o-h.net Sun Oct 12 23:24:22 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <6DD44BD9-30EB-4232-A077-DE2C601966D8@svcolo.com> from "Jo Rhett" at Oct 12, 2008 06:18:03 PM Message-ID: <200810130324.m9D3OMGC043576@vjofn.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > Thanks, Tuc for the references. However I found nothing here I didn't > already have. So barring any pre-NetSol allocations, there is > absolutely nothing in any of these documents that > Ok, really, I'll stop momentarily. I just keep finding fun stuff... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ One of my "legacy" assigned to me in 10/1994 is listed in that document as "ALLOCATED" to ARIN on 03/1994. So if the range was allocated to ARIN 7 months before it was allocated to me... Does it qualify as a Legacy that needs to go under the RSA, or is it an allocated IP that ARIN subsequently has not followed through on? Tuc/TBOH (NITE!) From jrhett at svcolo.com Mon Oct 13 14:04:26 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:04:26 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <200810130225.m9D2PXUx023285@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> References: <200810130225.m9D2PXUx023285@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: <3B39401F-F03F-414E-8D81-938B923A22AD@svcolo.com> > lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did > anything for such a long time, why now?" > > The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established > in December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to > start this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98? > Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings > a year. Perhaps there was an assumption that people would do the right thing without having to be forced? This used to be a lot more common behavior. > I guess I also go back to what was it that made you start this thread? My only motive is that pretty much every proposal on the table is being argued about not on the proposals merits, but how it affects non- signatories. This issue has become the roadblock for all ongoing proposals. And lots of people are making all sorts of claims about rights they would be giving up. I wanted to have explicit clarity on what rights these are. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From mstotyn at enmax.com Wed Oct 15 17:03:31 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:03:31 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <3B39401F-F03F-414E-8D81-938B923A22AD@svcolo.com> References: <200810130225.m9D2PXUx023285@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> <3B39401F-F03F-414E-8D81-938B923A22AD@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81BA706A7@MAIL04.enmax.com> Jo Rhett said: "I wanted to have explicit clarity on what rights these are." This is probably the crux of the problem. Was their any explicit clarity on the rights (or responsibilities) for legacy assignments? A block that I got in December of 1994 from the University of Toronto (who handled block assignments in Canada at that time) had little legal language associated with it and what was written was different than what IANA was saying at the time, which was different than what InterNIC said under the Versisign registry contract which may have been different from what the Department of Commerce intended, who was getting advice and policy development from Jon Postel. I'm having trouble finding documentation on the assignment. Since there wasn't really any legalese related to it, we didn't think much about document management related to the assignment. We just asked for the block, got one, used it, maintained it, thought of it as "ours" (whatever that word means) and carried on with our day-to-day work of figuring out how to run a network with the IP addresses that were handed to us with little explanation. In a sense, we homesteaded before the surveyors arrived to put stakes in the ground and we're still figuring out how to plough around them without digging them up. Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 12:04 PM To: Tuc Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights > lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did > anything for such a long time, why now?" > > The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established in > December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to start > this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98? > Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings > a year. Perhaps there was an assumption that people would do the right thing without having to be forced? This used to be a lot more common behavior. > I guess I also go back to what was it that made you start this thread? My only motive is that pretty much every proposal on the table is being argued about not on the proposals merits, but how it affects non- signatories. This issue has become the roadblock for all ongoing proposals. And lots of people are making all sorts of claims about rights they would be giving up. I wanted to have explicit clarity on what rights these are. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From jrhett at svcolo.com Wed Oct 15 17:55:02 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:55:02 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81BA706A7@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <200810130225.m9D2PXUx023285@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> <3B39401F-F03F-414E-8D81-938B923A22AD@svcolo.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81BA706A7@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <375DB6E7-D243-4791-B048-AF24F291CE22@svcolo.com> Exactly so. Many people are arguing that the lack of an explicit contract/policy was in itself a contract without a policy. I disagree. (god only knows if lawyers would agree) The real truth of the matter was that way back in that day every one of us was involved in the ongoing development process, and knew very well that we were going to be expected to step up and meet the demands as the protocols and requirements evolved. The current stance advocated by some members is a modern re-thinking that completely sidesteps the common understanding at the time. On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Stotyn, Mel wrote: > Jo Rhett said: > "I wanted to have explicit clarity on what rights these are." > > This is probably the crux of the problem. Was their any explicit > clarity > on the rights (or responsibilities) for legacy assignments? > A block that I got in December of 1994 from the University of Toronto > (who handled block assignments in Canada at that time) had little > legal > language associated with it and what was written was different than > what > IANA was saying at the time, which was different than what InterNIC > said > under the Versisign registry contract which may have been different > from > what the Department of Commerce intended, who was getting advice and > policy development from Jon Postel. > > I'm having trouble finding documentation on the assignment. Since > there > wasn't really any legalese related to it, we didn't think much about > document management related to the assignment. We just asked for the > block, got one, used it, maintained it, thought of it as "ours" > (whatever that word means) and carried on with our day-to-day work of > figuring out how to run a network with the IP addresses that were > handed > to us with little explanation. In a sense, we homesteaded before the > surveyors arrived to put stakes in the ground and we're still figuring > out how to plough around them without digging them up. > > Mel Stotyn > Senior Operations Specialist > ENMAX Envision Inc. > mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com > Phone: 403 514-3443 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 12:04 PM > To: Tuc > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights > >> lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did >> anything for such a long time, why now?" >> >> The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established > in >> December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to start >> this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98? >> Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings >> a year. > > Perhaps there was an assumption that people would do the right thing > without having to be forced? This used to be a lot more common > behavior. > >> I guess I also go back to what was it that made you start this >> thread? > > My only motive is that pretty much every proposal on the table is > being > argued about not on the proposals merits, but how it affects non- > signatories. This issue has become the roadblock for all ongoing > proposals. And lots of people are making all sorts of claims about > rights they would be giving up. I wanted to have explicit clarity on > what rights these are. > > -- > Jo Rhett > senior geek > > Silicon Valley Colocation > Support Phone: 408-400-0550 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > ************************************************************************ > This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and > may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the > person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, > please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any > attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. > ************************************************************************ > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From mstotyn at enmax.com Wed Oct 15 18:41:07 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:41:07 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <375DB6E7-D243-4791-B048-AF24F291CE22@svcolo.com> References: <200810130225.m9D2PXUx023285@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> <3B39401F-F03F-414E-8D81-938B923A22AD@svcolo.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81BA706A7@MAIL04.enmax.com> <375DB6E7-D243-4791-B048-AF24F291CE22@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81BA706A8@MAIL04.enmax.com> I happen to have been raised in a way that would tend to agree that I could be expected to go with the flow, as it developed, but I don't think that I gave it any thought at the time. I would only disagree with the assumption that "every one of us" had a "common understanding at the time". Some people might have been under the impression that they were being handed property rights. I don't know. I think that I would likely have thought of it as a "commons", if I had thought about it, just because that is the normal way that I think. Of course, as any resource becomes scarcer, it tends to focus one's mind more acutely and is influenced by one's basic nature. Mine, I think, is commons oriented; but certainly some are more private-property oriented. And, my basic nature does not set the policy of the companies that I work for, nor do my statements represent the position of my current organisation or the organisation that I worked for from 1994-1997 when ARIN was finally born. Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 -----Original Message----- From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at svcolo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:55 PM To: Stotyn, Mel Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights Exactly so. Many people are arguing that the lack of an explicit contract/policy was in itself a contract without a policy. I disagree. (god only knows if lawyers would agree) The real truth of the matter was that way back in that day every one of us was involved in the ongoing development process, and knew very well that we were going to be expected to step up and meet the demands as the protocols and requirements evolved. The current stance advocated by some members is a modern re-thinking that completely sidesteps the common understanding at the time. On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Stotyn, Mel wrote: > Jo Rhett said: > "I wanted to have explicit clarity on what rights these are." > > This is probably the crux of the problem. Was their any explicit > clarity on the rights (or responsibilities) for legacy assignments? > A block that I got in December of 1994 from the University of Toronto > (who handled block assignments in Canada at that time) had little > legal language associated with it and what was written was different > than what IANA was saying at the time, which was different than what > InterNIC said under the Versisign registry contract which may have > been different from what the Department of Commerce intended, who was > getting advice and policy development from Jon Postel. > > I'm having trouble finding documentation on the assignment. Since > there wasn't really any legalese related to it, we didn't think much > about document management related to the assignment. We just asked for > the block, got one, used it, maintained it, thought of it as "ours" > (whatever that word means) and carried on with our day-to-day work of > figuring out how to run a network with the IP addresses that were > handed to us with little explanation. In a sense, we homesteaded > before the surveyors arrived to put stakes in the ground and we're > still figuring out how to plough around them without digging them up. > > Mel Stotyn > Senior Operations Specialist > ENMAX Envision Inc. > mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com > Phone: 403 514-3443 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 12:04 PM > To: Tuc > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights > >> lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did >> anything for such a long time, why now?" >> >> The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established > in >> December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to start >> this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98? >> Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings >> a year. > > Perhaps there was an assumption that people would do the right thing > without having to be forced? This used to be a lot more common > behavior. > >> I guess I also go back to what was it that made you start this >> thread? > > My only motive is that pretty much every proposal on the table is > being argued about not on the proposals merits, but how it affects > non- signatories. This issue has become the roadblock for all ongoing > proposals. And lots of people are making all sorts of claims about > rights they would be giving up. I wanted to have explicit clarity on > what rights these are. > > -- > Jo Rhett > senior geek > > Silicon Valley Colocation > Support Phone: 408-400-0550 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > ********************************************************************** > ** This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above > and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not > the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their > mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and > any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. > ********************************************************************** > ** _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From ml at t-b-o-h.net Wed Oct 15 20:40:48 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <3B39401F-F03F-414E-8D81-938B923A22AD@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <200810160040.m9G0em8u039573@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > > lawyers about whats implicit, explicit, inferred, or "No one did > > anything for such a long time, why now?" > > > > The last one sorta is something I wonder. ARIN was established > > in December of 1997. Why, 10+ years later, have they decided to > > start this process? Shouldn't it have been started sometime in 1Q98? > > Theres been 20 some odd ARIN meetings, 8-10 Board of Trustee Meetings > > a year. > > Perhaps there was an assumption that people would do the right thing > without having to be forced? This used to be a lot more common > behavior. > On one of my blocks I *HAD* to have done "the right thing" as you say...... supposedly. But oddly the dates just don't add up. Between 5/1993 and 4/1995, 39 LEGACY blocks were allocated later to be picked up by ARIN as the RIR. I have a /24 in that block. IANA deemed LEGACY designation to be : LEGACY: allocated by the central Internet Registry (IR) prior to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). This address space is now administered by individual RIRs as noted, including maintenance of WHOIS Directory and reverse DNS records. Assignments from these blocks are distributed globally on a regional basis. Between 5/1993 and 4/1997, according to IANA, ARIN was directly ALLOCATED (I would think BEFORE use) 8 blocks. Another of my /24's is in there. IANA deems ALLOCATED as : ALLOCATED: delegated entirely to specific RIR as indicated. What seems odd, though, is that ARIN didn't come into being until December 1997! So is that second block "legacy" or "allocated"? Did ARIN supply it before they existed or did IANA do things on ARINs behalf? Or is IANA just WRONG? (FYI: According to IANA the next ARIN allocation didn't happen until 2 /8's were done in 7/2000) Tuc/TBOH From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Oct 16 05:50:21 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:50:21 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: <375DB6E7-D243-4791-B048-AF24F291CE22@svcolo.com> Message-ID: > Many people are arguing that the lack of an explicit > contract/policy was in itself a contract without a policy. I > disagree. (god only knows if lawyers would agree) A lot of lawyers would disagree. The basis of the legal concept of a contract is that there is a meeting of minds between the two parties, and that a consideration is paid. In other words to have a contract, there must be an agreement, and something that has monetary value is exchanged. While modern contracts are typically written and signed in order to provide hard evidence of a contract, it is not necessary if there are reputable witnesses who will swear in court that there was an agreement. Have you ever heard of the dollar-a-year men? During World War II a lot of business executives volunteered their services to get the war machine running, set up munitions plants, arrange transportation of materials, etc. A similar thing happened during World War I, and these people were paid a dollar a year in order for there to be a binding contract. Like a soldier who volunteers to fight, these people could not suddenly stop volunteering because they were now salaried workers of the government. There is a similar concept in the peppercorn rents that are paid in England. Many homeowners in England do not own the land which their house stands on. They have to pay annual rents to a landowner, often a local lord. If the lord wants to give over some land for a church or a charitable organization they make a contract to rent the land for a payment of one peppercorn per year. This makes it a legal contract, but one round pepper seed is so cheap to acquire that the tenant can easily meet this obligation and keep the contract in force. --Michael Dillon From jmaimon at chl.com Thu Oct 16 10:36:54 2008 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] bring copies of pre-ARIN IP allocations to ARIN please. In-Reply-To: <38DCCDC8-7367-4DDD-822C-578498AB7163@svcolo.com> References: <38DCCDC8-7367-4DDD-822C-578498AB7163@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <48F75186.8010501@chl.com> Jo Rhett wrote: > There have been quite a number of people making all sorts of claims > about "rights" given to them in their pre-ARIN allocations. Several > of these people would have been in middle school when I started > getting IP allocations, and I don't remember any documentation of > these "rights". > > But since I don't have copies of any pre-ARIN allocations > (organizations I've worked with became proper ARIN members quickly), > I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone would bring copies of their pre- > ARIN allocation paperwork to the ARIN conference. Let's make the > facts clear in this situation. > > Thanks. > I am more curious regarding exactly how the RIRs are legally bound by those agreements, whatever they are, seeing as they werent the ones who made them. From mcdermj at xenotropic.com Thu Oct 16 11:44:31 2008 From: mcdermj at xenotropic.com (Jeremy McDermond) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:44:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] pre-ARIN IP allocation legal rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63FBAC30-D5D6-4B33-8A09-3731E5607990@xenotropic.com> On Oct 16, 2008, at 5:50 AM, wrote: > A lot of lawyers would disagree. The basis of the legal concept > of a contract is that there is a meeting of minds between the > two parties, and that a consideration is paid. In other words > to have a contract, there must be an agreement, and something > that has monetary value is exchanged. While modern contracts > are typically written and signed in order to provide hard evidence > of a contract, it is not necessary if there are reputable witnesses > who will swear in court that there was an agreement. The Statute of Frauds requires contracts where performance cannot be completed within a year to be in written form. If the continuing in- addr.arpa and registration services were determined to be a continuing promise by the courts, it would mean that any agreement regarding them would have to be written. Note that this is also the provision that requires that contracts for real property sales are in writing. > Have you ever heard of the dollar-a-year men? During World War II > a lot of business executives volunteered their services to get > the war machine running, set up munitions plants, arrange > transportation > of materials, etc. A similar thing happened during World War I, and > these people were paid a dollar a year in order for there to be > a binding contract. Like a soldier who volunteers to fight, these > people could not suddenly stop volunteering because they were now > salaried workers of the government. Note that consideration is a two-way street. Each party has consideration in the contract. While the government's consideration is the single dollar, the executives' consideration is the promise to perform labor. In fact, the government's consideration was probably the promise to pay a dollar at a later date, and therefore the consideration exchanged was an exchange of promises. But also consider that some contracts are enforceable in the absence of consideration. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts has a whole topic (??82-96) about "Contracts Without Consideration". Of particular application here could be ?90 of the Restatement which says: "(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee ... and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise." If the predecessor to ARIN made a promise to provide registration services, and the legacies relied on that promise to conduct their business, the courts could enforce it as a contract notwithstanding the fact that there is really no consideration. This is discounting the privity of contract question. The "one-dollar" theory of contracts is frowned upon by the courts sometimes as "nominal consideration." If they see a huge discrepancy in consideration, they could find the contract unenforceable because they might see it as some indication of fraud. > --Michael Dillon -- Jeremy McDermond Xenotropic Systems mcdermj at xenotropic.com From jer at mia.net Fri Oct 17 12:42:25 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:42:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: <63FBAC30-D5D6-4B33-8A09-3731E5607990@xenotropic.com> References: <63FBAC30-D5D6-4B33-8A09-3731E5607990@xenotropic.com> Message-ID: Just out of curiosity, how many eligible voting members are there in ARIN? Yes, I am going somewhere with this. Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.thednsplace.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.hostinglizard.com From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Oct 17 14:02:41 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:02:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: References: <63FBAC30-D5D6-4B33-8A09-3731E5607990@xenotropic.com> Message-ID: <8D4AD0F5-28F5-4197-B399-B0B1D7E63D9B@istaff.org> > Just out of curiosity, how many eligible voting members are there in > ARIN? There are 2441 eligible voters confirmed for the present election. /John John Curran Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees From noc at peak.org Fri Oct 17 18:04:00 2008 From: noc at peak.org (Alan Batie) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:04:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] certificate policy Message-ID: <48F90BD0.402@peak.org> The new web interface may make this moot, but having just gone through a round of updates reminded me that the ARIN x509 certificate policy is problematic. Specifically, if you want to use certificates, A. you have to use one signed by their certificate authority, and B. you can't use it for anything else. The combination makes it pretty unworkable for anyone who actually uses certificates in email unless you create a separate email address that is only used for ARIN communications, as at least Thunderbird only associates one certificate with an address (or worse: per mail account). Is there really any good reason not to be able to register certificates from the standard CA's that everyone else already trusts? From vixie at isc.org Tue Oct 21 22:55:57 2008 From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:55:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] election progress report Message-ID: <99781.1224644157@nsa.vix.com> the election for the arin board and council which opened last friday has already seen more voters than last year's, but i know we can do better. so, to repeat what i said during open-mic at the members meeting in los angeles: please vote, and please contact some of your fellow arin members to remind them to vote. with all the ipv4 runout and relaxed transfer policies on the table and an ipv6 transition to manage, it's more important than ever. like ray always says, "who is arin? YOU are." From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Wed Oct 22 06:30:29 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:30:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] election progress report References: <99781.1224644157@nsa.vix.com> Message-ID: Thank you Paul. Really, with 2441 voting members (per John Curran), what a vote we could have! If everyone who 'participates' on ppml would email just one member colleague and they just one, we would likely have the best election ever. And, if each were similarly encouraged to participate in ppml, then next election the community would have a much better ARIN. Bill Darte ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Paul Vixie Sent: Tue 10/21/2008 9:55 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] election progress report the election for the arin board and council which opened last friday has already seen more voters than last year's, but i know we can do better. so, to repeat what i said during open-mic at the members meeting in los angeles: please vote, and please contact some of your fellow arin members to remind them to vote. with all the ipv4 runout and relaxed transfer policies on the table and an ipv6 transition to manage, it's more important than ever. like ray always says, "who is arin? YOU are." _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Oct 22 14:28:17 2008 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN is not like Palo Alto! -Or- What I saw by attending ARIN XXII last week in LA. Message-ID: <50646.66.201.44.139.1224700097.squirrel@bobevans.net> As many of you may know, I stayed for the ARIN meeting after NANOG. I did this to see what really takes place behind the online PPML discussions. I am happy to say that I saw the process. And that it is a pretty good ! It wasn't like a city hall meeting in Palo Alto. In Palo Alto, one side of a discussion fills the room with attendance and hogs all the time, while pompous council members sit and cater to those there. In Palo Alto, common sense is overruled by organized floor time hogging mob tactics. This is usually followed up by council members meeting privately with the mob organizers. Now that you walked in my shoes for a brief moment, you can see why I would approach the ARIN meeting with a great deal of skepticism. Last week at ARIN XXII, I witnessed the proper type of Robert's Rules of Order implemented. The one that gives the "sides" equal floor time. Something Palo Alto lost long ago. At ARIN there are enough people involved to make sure the interests of businesses like ours are never shoved aside. Trustees and Advisors take things very seriously. A strong level of fairness exists inside ARIN and it overrules the dollar! Ideas are well discussed, modified and discussed again and again then documented. In hopes of leaving little chance for interpretation, in the event an idea reaches the point of becoming a policy. Once a policy is in place it then becomes a 'matter of fact' process. The best way to make sure this spirit continues at ARIN is to participate. In this way we continue to have "individuals with good hearts and minds filling the seats". Individuals that never forget ARIN is for everyone. Let's keep ARIN for Everyone. Contact your peers and suggest they vote. bob evans (Your peers may not get ARIN mail lists...maybe you can copy this and email it to them. If tehy live in Palo Ato they will understand the need to participate.) bob evans www.FiberInternetCenter.com From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Wed Oct 22 15:04:47 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:04:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN is not like Palo Alto! -Or- What I saw by attending ARIN XXII last week in LA. In-Reply-To: <50646.66.201.44.139.1224700097.squirrel@bobevans.net> References: <50646.66.201.44.139.1224700097.squirrel@bobevans.net> Message-ID: Very nice! I thank you for personally getting involved and spreading the word... John Curran runs a grand meeting, indeed. Bill Darte ARIN AC > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bob Evans > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:28 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN is not like Palo Alto! -Or- What > I saw by attending ARIN XXII last week in LA. > > > As many of you may know, I stayed for the ARIN meeting after > NANOG. I did this to see what really takes place behind the > online PPML discussions. I am happy to say that I saw the > process. And that it is a pretty good ! > > It wasn't like a city hall meeting in Palo Alto. In Palo > Alto, one side of a discussion fills the room with attendance > and hogs all the time, while pompous council members sit and > cater to those there. In Palo Alto, common sense is overruled > by organized floor time hogging mob tactics. This is usually > followed up by council members meeting privately with the mob > organizers. Now that you walked in my shoes for a brief > moment, you can see why I would approach the ARIN meeting > with a great deal of skepticism. > > Last week at ARIN XXII, I witnessed the proper type of > Robert's Rules of Order implemented. The one that gives the > "sides" equal floor time. > Something Palo Alto lost long ago. > > At ARIN there are enough people involved to make sure the > interests of businesses like ours are never shoved aside. > Trustees and Advisors take things very seriously. A strong > level of fairness exists inside ARIN and it overrules the > dollar! Ideas are well discussed, modified and discussed > again and again then documented. In hopes of leaving little > chance for interpretation, in the event an idea reaches the > point of becoming a policy. Once a policy is in place it then > becomes a 'matter of fact' > process. > > The best way to make sure this spirit continues at ARIN is to > participate. > In this way we continue to have "individuals with good hearts > and minds filling the seats". Individuals that never forget > ARIN is for everyone. > > Let's keep ARIN for Everyone. > Contact your peers and suggest they vote. > bob evans > (Your peers may not get ARIN mail lists...maybe you can copy > this and email it to them. If tehy live in Palo Ato they will > understand the need to participate.) > > bob evans > www.FiberInternetCenter.com > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Oct 22 16:57:50 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:57:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due to impending IPv4 runout? Message-ID: <4CC06FC2282D4299A1BEBE1787705D3A@tedsdesk> A point was raised in a recent thread that the current fees for IPv4 could be adjusted in the years and months closer to IPv4 runout - currently projected sometime around 2011 - that might accomplish the following: 1) Buy some more time before the actual date of IPv4 runout from ARIN by slowing applications. 2) Discourage hoarders who are hoping that an "IPv4 market" will appear post-runout Currently, the fees for IPv4 are set to cover the cost of ARIN administration of IPv4. IT SEEMS TO ME that IF proposals such as "POC cleanup" and "ARIN refereeing IPv4 sales" go into operation, that the administration of IPv4 WILL BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE and thus EVEN WITHOUT ANY MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION that ARIN will need to RAISE IPv4 fees. Post IPv4 runout, there will STILL be orgs that go bankrupt and release their IPv4 allocations, there will still be orgs willing to "trade in" fragmented IPv4 blocks hoping to gain larger blocks, and there still will be orgs that merge and give up IPv4 as a result. In short, there will be "dirty" IPv4 coming into ARIN for allocation. Thus, ARIN will still be in the business of administering IPv4, the IPv4 fee schedule simply won't be discarded. It also MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS for ARIN to CREDIT orgs that "turn in" IPv4 post-IPv4 runout. For example if an org has a few extra IPv4 subnets that aren't part of a larger aggregate, perhaps a few years of credit on their bill might convince them to turn them back into ARIN for reallocation. AND, it might also be advantgeous for ARIN to pay a "bounty" on "information leading to the recovery of abandonded IPv4" basically, paying for people to give them documentation that shows that a legacy holding is defunct. After all, ARIN would have to pay labor time to research this anyway, if it engages in it itself. Why not pay some IPv4 bounty hunters? In short, fee changes are coming even if we do nothing - so why not do something? Ted From artur at eboundhost.com Wed Oct 22 17:18:19 2008 From: artur at eboundhost.com (Artur (eBoundHost)) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:18:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due toimpending IPv4 runout? In-Reply-To: <4CC06FC2282D4299A1BEBE1787705D3A@tedsdesk> References: <4CC06FC2282D4299A1BEBE1787705D3A@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <1171641608-1224710181-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-578288550-@bxe318.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Maybe I'm short sighted but I think fee changes is the wrong way to go. There is already an incentive to move to ip6, the shortage of ip4. If you want to encourage the migration then you need to continue to hand out ipv4 at whatever rate it is requested. When the time comes the solution will be a natural one, ipv6 will be the only thing available. Also as I understand that ARIN charges these fees in a not-for-profit structure? I don't mind paying a yearly maintenance fee for infrastructure but definitely object to punitive fees to maintain legacy equipment. Best Regards, Artur eBoundHost http://www.eboundhost.com -----Original Message----- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:57:50 To: Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due to impending IPv4 runout? A point was raised in a recent thread that the current fees for IPv4 could be adjusted in the years and months closer to IPv4 runout - currently projected sometime around 2011 - that might accomplish the following: 1) Buy some more time before the actual date of IPv4 runout from ARIN by slowing applications. 2) Discourage hoarders who are hoping that an "IPv4 market" will appear post-runout Currently, the fees for IPv4 are set to cover the cost of ARIN administration of IPv4. IT SEEMS TO ME that IF proposals such as "POC cleanup" and "ARIN refereeing IPv4 sales" go into operation, that the administration of IPv4 WILL BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE and thus EVEN WITHOUT ANY MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION that ARIN will need to RAISE IPv4 fees. Post IPv4 runout, there will STILL be orgs that go bankrupt and release their IPv4 allocations, there will still be orgs willing to "trade in" fragmented IPv4 blocks hoping to gain larger blocks, and there still will be orgs that merge and give up IPv4 as a result. In short, there will be "dirty" IPv4 coming into ARIN for allocation. Thus, ARIN will still be in the business of administering IPv4, the IPv4 fee schedule simply won't be discarded. It also MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS for ARIN to CREDIT orgs that "turn in" IPv4 post-IPv4 runout. For example if an org has a few extra IPv4 subnets that aren't part of a larger aggregate, perhaps a few years of credit on their bill might convince them to turn them back into ARIN for reallocation. AND, it might also be advantgeous for ARIN to pay a "bounty" on "information leading to the recovery of abandonded IPv4" basically, paying for people to give them documentation that shows that a legacy holding is defunct. After all, ARIN would have to pay labor time to research this anyway, if it engages in it itself. Why not pay some IPv4 bounty hunters? In short, fee changes are coming even if we do nothing - so why not do something? Ted _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Oct 22 18:27:34 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:27:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due toimpending IPv4 runout? In-Reply-To: <1171641608-1224710181-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-578288550-@bxe318.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <5D244A26F05846D4B61136682E671FA1@tedsdesk> Artur, To recap, post IPv4 runout there will be "dirty" IPv4 coming into ARIN for allocation. Thus, ARIN will still be in the business of administering IPv4, the IPv4 fee schedule simply won't be discarded. It will cost more to adminster IPv4 because rather than going to a list of IPv4 that has never been used, ARIN will have to spend labor verifying that the dirty IPv4 coming in is indeed not in use, valid to give out, etc. Additionally, if many of the proposals to scavenge IPv4 are passed, or if the whois cleanup proposals are passed, those things will cost more money, and thus even more will be spent on IPv4 administration. You sound almost like you would want ARIN to cease all activity with assigning IPv4 post-runout. Currently though, ARIN has no authority to do this. The ARIN membership directed ARIN to have fees cover costs. Since costs for managing IPv4 will likely rise, the fees for IPv4 will likely rise as well. For orgs that do not want to pay more money, they can always turn back in their IPv4 and just use IPv6. If what you really want is to see YOUR fee for your yearly IPv4 administration to go down, then you might want to read the entire post and think about some of the suggestions at the bottom. Ted > -----Original Message----- > From: Artur (eBoundHost) [mailto:artur at eboundhost.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:18 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net; > arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure > called for due toimpending IPv4 runout? > > > Maybe I'm short sighted but I think fee changes is the wrong > way to go. There is already an incentive to move to ip6, the > shortage of ip4. If you want to encourage the migration then > you need to continue to hand out ipv4 at whatever rate it is > requested. When the time comes the solution will be a natural > one, ipv6 will be the only thing available. > > Also as I understand that ARIN charges these fees in a > not-for-profit structure? I don't mind paying a yearly > maintenance fee for infrastructure but definitely object to > punitive fees to maintain legacy equipment. > > Best Regards, > > Artur > eBoundHost > http://www.eboundhost.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" > > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:57:50 > To: > Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due to > impending IPv4 runout? > > > > A point was raised in a recent thread that the current fees > for IPv4 could be adjusted in the years and months closer to > IPv4 runout - currently projected sometime around 2011 - that > might accomplish the following: > > 1) Buy some more time before the actual date of IPv4 runout > from ARIN by slowing applications. > > 2) Discourage hoarders who are hoping that an "IPv4 market" > will appear post-runout > > Currently, the fees for IPv4 are set to cover the cost of > ARIN administration of IPv4. > > IT SEEMS TO ME that IF proposals such as "POC cleanup" and > "ARIN refereeing IPv4 sales" go into operation, that the > administration of IPv4 WILL BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE and thus > EVEN WITHOUT ANY MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION that ARIN will need to > RAISE IPv4 fees. > > Post IPv4 runout, there will STILL be orgs that go bankrupt > and release their IPv4 allocations, there will still be orgs > willing to "trade in" fragmented IPv4 blocks hoping to gain > larger blocks, and there still will be orgs that merge and > give up IPv4 as a result. In short, there will be "dirty" > IPv4 coming into ARIN for allocation. Thus, ARIN will still > be in the business of administering IPv4, the IPv4 fee > schedule simply won't be discarded. > > It also MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS for ARIN to CREDIT orgs that > "turn in" IPv4 post-IPv4 runout. For example if an org has a > few extra IPv4 subnets that aren't part of a larger > aggregate, perhaps a few years of credit on their bill might > convince them to turn them back into ARIN for reallocation. > > AND, it might also be advantgeous for ARIN to pay a "bounty" > on "information leading to the recovery of abandonded IPv4" > basically, paying for people to give them documentation that > shows that a legacy holding is defunct. After all, ARIN > would have to pay labor time to research this anyway, if it > engages in it itself. Why not pay some IPv4 bounty hunters? > > In short, fee changes are coming even if we do nothing - so > why not do something? > > Ted > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From noc at peak.org Wed Oct 22 19:26:23 2008 From: noc at peak.org (Alan Batie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:26:23 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due toimpending IPv4 runout? In-Reply-To: <5D244A26F05846D4B61136682E671FA1@tedsdesk> References: <5D244A26F05846D4B61136682E671FA1@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <48FFB69F.1050609@peak.org> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > It will cost more to adminster IPv4 because rather > > than going to a list of IPv4 that has never been used, > > ARIN will have to spend labor verifying that the dirty > > IPv4 coming in is indeed not in use, valid to give out, > > etc. There is also a broader issue of "dirty": I tried to get some non-portable space recently, and it was on so many spam blacklists it was unuseable. I'm not sure this is the place for a solution, but it's an even bigger issue that needs to be addressed. From artur at eboundhost.com Wed Oct 22 23:33:23 2008 From: artur at eboundhost.com (Artur (eBoundHost)) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:33:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Is a review of fee structure called for due toimpending IPv4 runout? In-Reply-To: <5D244A26F05846D4B61136682E671FA1@tedsdesk> References: <5D244A26F05846D4B61136682E671FA1@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <48FFF083.4030108@eboundhost.com> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ======== If what you really want is to see YOUR fee for your yearly IPv4 administration to go down.... ======== Ted, let me clear up this one first. Honestly speaking, the ARIN fees do not impact me personally in any meaningful way. Whatever we are paying now to maintain our IP allocation is absolutely eclipsed by other business expenses. My position is purely as an outside observer and I'm responding to your post on the topic. Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ======== You sound almost like you would want ARIN to cease all activity with assigning IPv4 post-runout. Currently though, ARIN has no authority to do this. ======== This may not be as terrible of an idea as it seems at first, but probably not realistic. The best way to spur the migration is to have a demand for ip addresses greater than the supply. And lets be serious, the real people who make the difference in our part of the world are companies like comcast and verizon who blanket the country with residential and business access. Until the end user is moved onto ipv6, businesses have no reason to pick up the expense of a migration that may or may not have fiscal benefits. And these giants (att, comcast, verizon) probably also don't care very much if the fees go up for ip allocation. They have a bottomless vault of money, so you can't push them into a migration by raising costs. You are right, "dirty" blocks are not something i considered but i still don't see why it would be more expensive to deal with them since there is going to be a declining need as time moves on and v6 becomes viable. And in my understanding the effort will be marginally bigger than issuing fresh blocks. In fact are you certain that dirty blocks are not being redistributed at the moment? Our allocation seemed to have all sorts of bad history with various spam engines. Anyway, i am not aware of the past discussions so if i said something that has been discussed to death, please accept my apologies. Best Regards, Artur eBoundHost http://www.eboundhost.com From jer at mia.net Sat Oct 25 12:34:49 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:34:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why am I asking? Rhetorical question! Want to know a good way to save ARIN $10,416.45 Better yet, is this a significant amount of money that might motivate members to ask both how that can be saved, and why its being spent? Oh, and it kinda has to do with "Certified Mail". On Oct 24, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > The ARIN member list page reports 3245 Members presently, not the 2441 > number given by John Curran. > > Also, John Curran falsely claims to be the Chair of the ARIN Board of > Trustees. Mr Curran was not properly elected to the Board because > there > wasn't a quorum necessary to elect a trustee as required by the > Virginia > Nonstock Corporation Act. Mr. Curran has been notified of this fact > by > certified mail. > > Dean Anderson > ARIN Member in Good Standing > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > > Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.bella-mia.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.thednsplace.com From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 25 13:07:27 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:07:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeremy - ARIN's been doing quite a bit of outreach to the members regarding annual election, and this includes email and postal reminders of the election procedures & timeframe. We've also added a nominee questionnaire so that members could see candidate positions on significant issues which impact the organization. Both of these were the result of feedback from the members received early this year on this mailing list. Thanks! /John John Curran Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees On Oct 25, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey wrote: > Why am I asking? Rhetorical question! > > Want to know a good way to save ARIN $10,416.45 > > Better yet, is this a significant amount of money that might motivate > members to ask both how that can be saved, and why its being spent? > > Oh, and it kinda has to do with "Certified Mail". > > Jeremy Anthony Kinsey From jer at mia.net Wed Oct 29 13:39:11 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:39:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, John Curran wrote: > Jeremy - > > ARIN's been doing quite a bit of outreach to the members > regarding annual election, and this includes email and > postal reminders of the election procedures & timeframe. > Understood, but it is really unnecessary IMO to send out registered mail. The expense aside, its a method of delivery not normally meant for things like voting reminders in non profits. The additional mail that was not registered is also unnecessary when the very company resorting to these alternate forms of communication is so technology based as are the recipients of such correspondence. I'm sorry, it just seems ridiculous to me that a organization would waste members resources on a registered mailing campaign to remind members of what they already know, or at the very least should make known unto themselves by being more active. I don't recall my last invoice from ARIN showing up registered mail. In fact, when I received the registered mail I was under the impression I either missed a payment, did something wrong, or was being sued. Those are the only times I've ever seen registered mail employed. Registered mail is used to insure the receipt of mail by the recipient. This is usually done with items of importance like suits, invoices, payments, etc., to insure the contents were received by the recipient. What are was saying to voting members? We're gonna make sure you vote? Or, we are to going to see who does not? What exactly? I fail to understand how on earth sending out thousands of registered mail letters at over 3 bucks a pop is a careful use of members resources. Besides being wasteful, its stupid. > We've also added a nominee questionnaire so that members > could see candidate positions on significant issues which > impact the organization. Really? Perhaps you could find a way to insure that those of us that filled it out would stop receiving it? I filled it out, and continued to receive the questionnaire over and over again. The questionnaire's and voting should cease to be anonymous at some point to cut down on the repetition. > > > Both of these were the result of feedback from the members > received early this year on this mailing list. I know I have not followed the mailing list as closely as possible, but I cannot believe that voting members suggested wasting money on registered mail to remind you to vote. I'm trying to be calm here, and appreciate the response and attempt at an explanation. However, frankly after that comic book, I've about had it with the bs and waste. Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.thednsplace.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.hostinglizard.com From jer at mia.net Wed Oct 29 13:46:41 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:46:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62A5E064-6F4F-4AB2-82C6-F94C9B1F77B1@mia.net> On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > Are you talking about the certified mail letters sent to ARIN members > recently? If so, I agree that was a complete waste of money. > Certified > mail is to legally prove that the letter was received. Usually > certified mail is done to prevent the recipient from claiming > ignorance; > as might be the case with Board members who might assert they didn't > know of the lack of quorum in their elections; or a Board member who > might assert they thought some OTHER board member was not validly > elected. And of course, if the Board member refuses to receive > certified mail at their proper address then that fact can lead to an > adverse inference as well. Yes, I am talking about the stupid decision to waste money on sending a certified letter telling me what I already know. I think the use of certified mail here was not only a waste, but likely something that is totally inappropriate. > > > By contrast, ARIN is required by law (Virginia Nonstock Corporation > Act > Section 13.1-842) to give notice of an upcoming election, but it > doesn't > need to send that notice by CERTIFIED MAIL. Further, the notice > required > by law has to occur "no less than ten nor more than sixty days before > the date of the meeting". So ARIN had to send these notices much > sooner > than 10/14 (the date on my letter) for a member meeting taking place > on > 10/15-10/17. Even notice sent 10/14 about a vote ending 10/24 at 12pm > is less than ten days, so this letter had no effect whatsoever; it was > just marketing literature sent by certified mail. So, a waste of > money. Then post it on the website and in a paper or a simple letter. Simply placing it on the web site makes it "Published". Once published, its as good as gold and considered as a matter of record. If someone did not know when to vote, that's too bad. Does ARIN need to send out hundreds of invoice emails, invoice letters, certified invoice letters to get someone to remember to pay their bill? I'm sure that happens in some cases, but more often than not, you get a bill, you pay it. I see the constant barrage of letters, marketing fluff, emails and now this certified letter as a total waste of my time and the organizations finances. You have a WEB SITE. Use it. > > > Maybe the judgment of management needs to be reviewed; hopefully, this > will be the first order of business for a new board of directors to > replace the unelected 'board members'. :-) > Reviewed how? Run for a position? Make noise? Complain? What? Normally in my business life, if I did not like something a supplier, customer, or employee was doing, I got rid of them. Sadly with ARIN, I am glued to the oligopoly as it stands. Using Certified mail for this purpose was careless, wasteful and just plain stupid. Thats about all I can do is say my piece. It was a bad move. Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.thednsplace.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.hostinglizard.com From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Oct 29 15:09:09 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:09:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy > Anthony Kinsey > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:39 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Voting Members > > > > On Oct 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, John Curran wrote: > > > Jeremy - > > > > ARIN's been doing quite a bit of outreach to the members > regarding > > annual election, and this includes email and postal > reminders of the > > election procedures & timeframe. > > > > Understood, but it is really unnecessary IMO to send out registered > mail. The expense aside, its a method of delivery not > normally meant > for things like voting reminders in non profits. The > additional mail > that was not registered is also unnecessary when the very company > resorting to these alternate forms of communication is so technology > based as are the recipients of such correspondence. > > I'm sorry, it just seems ridiculous to me that a organization would > waste members resources on a registered mailing campaign to remind > members of what they already know, or at the very least should make > known unto themselves by being more active. > Members know, but they aren't voting. I actually appreciated the registered mail - it wasn't the reminder, as the fact that when my boss got it, it raised the importance of participation in ARIN in his eyes. I know it sounds stupid. But keep in mind that not all check-signers at networks are technical people. That should have been made pretty clear with the bankruptcy of Apex Global Internet Services. (agis.net) The technical people in that company were disgusted with the spammers, it was the non-technical check-signing moneybag holders who were so pro-spammer. They ignored what the techs were telling them and they lost their money as a result. Unfortunately, there's still plenty more ISP's that are run by moneybag people who ignored that particular lesson. > I don't recall my last invoice from ARIN showing up > registered mail. > In fact, when I received the registered mail I was under the > impression I either missed a payment, did something wrong, or was > being sued. Those are the only times I've ever seen registered mail > employed. > > Registered mail is used to insure the receipt of mail by the > recipient. This is usually done with items of importance > like suits, > invoices, payments, etc., to insure the contents were > received by the > recipient. > Which is EXACTLY why it's so impressive to the NON-technical people at an ISP. Hey, someone spent some REAL MONEY to contact the network admin, maybe I better start paying attention when he keeps telling me I got to spend more money on upgraded equipment to support IPv6. > attempt at > an explanation. However, frankly after that comic book, I've > about had > it with the bs and waste. > Hey, the comic book was cool! Don't go dissin the comic book! Ted From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Oct 29 18:10:06 2008 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting Members In-Reply-To: <62A5E064-6F4F-4AB2-82C6-F94C9B1F77B1@mia.net> References: <62A5E064-6F4F-4AB2-82C6-F94C9B1F77B1@mia.net> Message-ID: <63240.66.201.44.139.1225318206.squirrel@bobevans.net> Often - Snail Mail here gets tossed or delayed. Not a good method....Please let's not do it again. :-) Thanks for Listening bob evans > > On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > >> Are you talking about the certified mail letters sent to ARIN members >> recently? If so, I agree that was a complete waste of money. >> Certified >> mail is to legally prove that the letter was received. Usually >> certified mail is done to prevent the recipient from claiming >> ignorance; >> as might be the case with Board members who might assert they didn't >> know of the lack of quorum in their elections; or a Board member who >> might assert they thought some OTHER board member was not validly >> elected. And of course, if the Board member refuses to receive >> certified mail at their proper address then that fact can lead to an >> adverse inference as well. > > Yes, I am talking about the stupid decision to waste money on sending > a certified letter telling me what I already know. > > I think the use of certified mail here was not only a waste, but > likely something that is totally inappropriate. >> >> >> By contrast, ARIN is required by law (Virginia Nonstock Corporation >> Act >> Section 13.1-842) to give notice of an upcoming election, but it >> doesn't >> need to send that notice by CERTIFIED MAIL. Further, the notice >> required >> by law has to occur "no less than ten nor more than sixty days before >> the date of the meeting". So ARIN had to send these notices much >> sooner >> than 10/14 (the date on my letter) for a member meeting taking place >> on >> 10/15-10/17. Even notice sent 10/14 about a vote ending 10/24 at 12pm >> is less than ten days, so this letter had no effect whatsoever; it was >> just marketing literature sent by certified mail. So, a waste of >> money. > > Then post it on the website and in a paper or a simple letter. Simply > placing it on the web site makes it "Published". Once published, its > as good as gold and considered as a matter of record. > > If someone did not know when to vote, that's too bad. Does ARIN need > to send out hundreds of invoice emails, invoice letters, certified > invoice letters to get someone to remember to pay their bill? I'm > sure that happens in some cases, but more often than not, you get a > bill, you pay it. I see the constant barrage of letters, marketing > fluff, emails and now this certified letter as a total waste of my > time and the organizations finances. > > You have a WEB SITE. Use it. >> >> >> Maybe the judgment of management needs to be reviewed; hopefully, this >> will be the first order of business for a new board of directors to >> replace the unelected 'board members'. :-) >> > > Reviewed how? Run for a position? Make noise? Complain? What? > Normally in my business life, if I did not like something a supplier, > customer, or employee was doing, I got rid of them. Sadly with ARIN, > I am glued to the oligopoly as it stands. > > Using Certified mail for this purpose was careless, wasteful and just > plain stupid. Thats about all I can do is say my piece. It was a bad > move. > > Regards, > Jeremy Anthony Kinsey > e-mail: jer at mia.net > _____________________________________ > Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net > 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com > Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com > Phone: (262)248-6759 www.thednsplace.com > Fax: (262)248-6959 www.hostinglizard.com > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > www.FiberInternetCenter.com