[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[william at elan.net]

What do you think about doing this different then what is in 2002-7 and 
instead of lowering minimimum allocation/assignment and having company 
become new full member, doing this with special policy and special 
associate membership. We can do it so that to get this membership company 
would need to have two ARIN full members sponsor it (i.e. its two 
upstreams) and would not be able to go directly to ARIN but would need to 
have one of sponsors come to ARIN and request this ip block on their 
behalf. This has the following advantages over current proposal:
  1. ARIN is not put in the position of having to verify multihoming,
  having two sponsors makes sure of that.
  2. Presumably existing arin members would filter out some companies that 
  really do not need this separate ip block and make sure and make sure 
  that some technical requirements exist for the assignment. 
  3. It is still possible for company that got this associative membership 
  to move to another isp and keep the ip block, but they would need to 
  make sure their new isp is willing to sponsor them. 
  4. ARIN has records on who sponsors are and in case of billing problems 
  or if it receives reports that address or some other whois info is not 
  kept up to date, it can ask for assistance of their sponsors to get in 
  touch with right people. 

I do realize this would be kind of compromise and it would not be as easy 
to get small ip block as some would like but on the other hand I believe 
some of the current proponents (like large ISPs who are worried about 
loosing control of ip assignments) may support this and it might be 
good as compromise between different positions.

Please comment on above and if you think this is a good idea, I'll write 
up official proposal.

----
William Leibzon
Elan Communications
william at elan.net