From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Thu Jul 1 06:01:39 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:01:39 +0100 Subject: [ppml] TRO Message-ID: Let's all remember that TROs are not permanent. The T stands for Temporary. Also, the court has not said that the plaintiff's IP addresses are portable, i.e. the court has not made a ruling. They have simply said "Whoaaa Nelly, hold on there, don't do anything you might regret while we think about it". Because there is no court ruling there are no precedents and there are no implications for other companies. The only people who really need to think about taking some sort of action are ARIN, ICANN and New Jersey ISPs. And as we have learned, several of these are indeed preparing friend-of-the-court briefs (that's amicus curiae if you prefer the ancient mother tongue) and there is a high likelihood that the whole matter will be resolved in favor of the status quo (that's latin slang for the way things are). If the matter ever gets transferred to a federal court, then we can begin to worry, but for now, relax and enjoy the summer. --Michael Dillon From plzak at arin.net Thu Jul 1 14:30:29 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:30:29 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Comment Message-ID: <200407011830.OAA19514@ops.arin.net> On Tuesday, 29 June, I assigned the ARIN General Counsel the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally or as an amicus in the case filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division for Morris County No: MRSC-87-04. ARIN's interest in reviewing this dispute was two fold: a. Determine whether the global and regional policies regarding the use of Internet Numbering Resources have been violated; and b. Determine whether the Registration Service Agreements which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have signed with ARIN have been violated. The pleadings in this case have been carefully reviewed by the ARIN General Counsel. As a result of that review we have preliminarily determined that neither the policies nor Registration Service Agreements have been violated. Therefore we have concluded that it is not appropriate for ARIN to intervene formally or as an amicus in this case. The parties to the dispute are the Plaintiff, a company known as University Communications dba Pegasus Web Technologies, which provides web hosting and internet access services to customers, and its principal; and the Defendant, Net Access Corporation, an ISP that supplied number resources, obtained from ARIN, to the Plaintiff. ARIN has no interest in the 'who shot John' allegations between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding claims of breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and etc. Stripped to its essence, it is clear that Plaintiff no longer wants to do business in the long run with Defendant, and appears to be following ARIN and Internet customary procedures to renumber client accounts in a manner that will permit its internet customers to seamlessly continue their use of the Internet, whether the number used was originally issued to the Defendant, then provided to the specific member of the public by the Plaintiff, or is now being renumbered by the Plaintiff. It does take time to renumber, and it appears the real issue in this suit is Plaintiff's attempt to obtain from the Court what it believes is sufficient time to accomplish this task. We express no opinion whether the Plaintiff might have moved faster in this regard and avoided this dispute, because those facts are not fully known to us. We have carefully reviewed the arguments provided and do not believe the arguments by the Plaintiff sought any relief inconstant with obtaining time to renumber, consistent with ARIN's and the Internet community's normal expectations. That is also the overall thrust of the Order to Show Cause With Temporary Restraints issued by the Court. There is language in that Order that if taken out of context of the arguments and spirit of the Order might have raised some concern. For example the Order does not clearly expire in several months consistent with the requested time to renumber. However, we have concluded it is not a problem when read in context and ARIN can at any point raise in any Court its objection to an open ended requirement that numbers supplied by business A to business B must be maintained in perpetuity and not renumbered. Therefore, we have concluded that the recent intense discussion was fueled by a characterization of the litigation by one of the parties in a manner that was intended to and did raise community concerns, that we do not agree are implicated at this time. We will continue to monitor this and other litigation that might genuinely raise these concerns, and will alert the community to such cases when we find them so courts can be educated about these policies. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO ARIN From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Jul 2 14:44:24 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Implementation: 2003-5 Distributed Information Server Use Requirements Message-ID: <200407021844.OAA17255@ops.arin.net> The following policy has been adopted in the ARIN region and will take effect on July 2, 2004: 2003-5 Distributed Information Server Use Requirements http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_5.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From Suzanne_Woolf at isc.org Wed Jul 14 15:03:40 2004 From: Suzanne_Woolf at isc.org (Suzanne Woolf) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:03:40 +0000 Subject: [ppml] [iesg-secretary@ietf.org: Last Call: 'Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses' to Proposed Standard] Message-ID: <20040714190339.GA62736@farside.isc.org> Per discussion in Vancouver....The IETF has an internet-draft (proposed RFC) out for review regarding the assignment of a global IPv6 prefix intended strictly for local communications. This is approximately the role filled by RFC 1918 address space in the IPv4 address hierarchy, but also includes an attempt to resolve the addressing conflicts that arise now when two entities using RFC 1918 space want to interoperate. The IESG has solicited comments, preferring to receive them by July 15. The introduction states: This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally unique and is intended for local communications [IPV6]. These addresses are called Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses and are abbreviated in this document as Local IPv6 addresses. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. They are routable inside of a more limited area such as a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of sites. Local IPv6 unicast addresses have the following characteristics: - Globally unique prefix. - Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site boundaries. - Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected without creating any address conflicts or requiring renumbering of interfaces using these prefixes. - Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for communications inside of a site without having any permanent or intermittent Internet connectivity. - If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, there is no conflict with any other addresses. - In practice, applications may treat these addresses like global scoped addresses. ----- Forwarded message from The IESG ----- To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:31:52 -0400 Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org Subject: Last Call: 'Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses' to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IP Version 6 Working Group WG to consider the following document: - 'Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg at ietf.org or ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2004-07-15. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ----- End forwarded message ----- -- ============ Suzanne Woolf +1-650-423-1333 Software Engineering Manager Internet Systems Consortium ** Fortune favors the prepared mind ** From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Jul 20 16:42:06 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:42:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Deadline for Policy Proposals Message-ID: <200407202042.QAA11704@ops.arin.net> The ARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting will take place October 20-21, 2004, in Reston, Virginia. New policy proposals must be submitted by 23:59 EST on Saturday, August 21, 2004, in order to be considered by the ARIN Advisory Council for possible inclusion on the ARIN XIV agenda. This is in accordance with ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, which indicates that proposed policies must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the meeting. Those who wish to propose new ARIN number resource policies or modifications to existing ARIN number resource policies must submit a completed Policy Proposal Template. The template must be submitted via e-mail to policy at arin.net. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html The Policy Proposal Template can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep_template.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)