From memsvcs at arin.net Mon May 10 17:08:26 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] 2003-3 Residential Customer Privacy - Implemented Message-ID: <200405102108.RAA26496@ops.arin.net> The following policy was ratified in the ARIN region. It is in effect as of today, May 10, 2004: 2003-3 Residential Customer Privacy http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_3.html Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Mon May 17 18:41:10 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Implementation: 2003-15 IPv4 Allocation Policy for the African Portion of the ARIN Region Message-ID: <200405172241.SAA04631@ops.arin.net> The following policy has been adopted in the ARIN region and will take effect on May 18, 2004. Implementation had been delayed pending the ARIN Board of Trustees' review of a new fee schedule that would have an impact on the policy. The Board conducted its review; 'extra small' is a new category for allocations and assignments smaller than /20. The following policy takes effect on May 18, 2004: 2003-15 IPv4 Allocation Policy for the African Portion of the ARIN Region, http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_15.html. The ARIN Fee Schedule is available here: http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html. Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Mon May 17 18:42:39 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Implementation: 2002-3 Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks Message-ID: <200405172242.SAA04878@ops.arin.net> The following policy has been adopted in the ARIN region and will take effect on May 18, 2004. Implementation had been delayed pending the ARIN Board of Trustees' review of a new fee schedule that would have an impact on the policy. The Board conducted its review; 'extra small' is a new category for allocations and assignments smaller than /20. The following policy takes effect on May 18, 2004: 2002-3 Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks, http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_3.html. The ARIN Fee Schedule is available here: http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html. Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:15:38 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 Message-ID: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal. The Advisory Council has determined that there was community support for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments collected during this last call period. Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004. Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ####################################### Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes Author: ARIN Advisory Council Policy term: permanent Policy statement: A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years" will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years". B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or..." Rationale: These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to acknowledge the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also they further stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service providers in the ARIN region. The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document: 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years. The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is available here: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:27:27 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-9 - Abandoned Message-ID: <200405201827.OAA18428@ops.arin.net> This message contains the ARIN Advisory Council's (AC) evaluation of policy proposal 2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the AC evaluates policy proposals for community support based on comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and polling from the Public Policy Meeting. Depending on the level of community support the AC may: 1) support the proposal as is, 2) work with the author to revise the proposal, 3) abandon the policy due to lack of community support. Policy proposals that have gained community support as is or through revision will be posted to last call. In the event that the Advisory Council abandons the proposal, the author may elect to use the last call petition process to challenge the AC's determination. The following is a link to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process; for petition details please refer to the section called "Last Call Petition Process": http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Per the AC minutes of April 20, 2004: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support to abandon Policy Proposal 2003-9." Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:30:40 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-16 - Abandoned Message-ID: <200405201830.OAA19524@ops.arin.net> This message contains the ARIN Advisory Council's (AC) evaluation of policy proposal 2003-16: POC Verification. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the AC evaluates policy proposals for community support based on comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and polling from the Public Policy Meeting. Depending on the level of community support the AC may: 1) support the proposal as is, 2) work with the author to revise the proposal, 3) abandon the policy due to lack of community support. Policy proposals that have gained community support as is or through revision will be posted to last call. In the event that the Advisory Council abandons the proposal, the author may elect to use the last call petition process to challenge the AC's determination. The following is a link to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process; for petition details please refer to the section called "Last Call Petition Process": http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Per the AC minutes of April 20, 2004: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, abandons Policy Proposal 2003-16." Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:32:53 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-1 - Abandoned Message-ID: <200405201832.OAA20024@ops.arin.net> This message contains the ARIN Advisory Council's (AC) evaluation of policy proposal 2004-1: Defining Utilization of IPv4 Addresses. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the AC evaluates policy proposals for community support based on comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and polling from the Public Policy Meeting. Depending on the level of community support the AC may: 1) support the proposal as is, 2) work with the author to revise the proposal, 3) abandon the policy due to lack of community support. Policy proposals that have gained community support as is or through revision will be posted to last call. In the event that the Advisory Council abandons the proposal, the author may elect to use the last call petition process to challenge the AC's determination. The following is a link to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process; for petition details please refer to the section called "Last Call Petition Process": http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Per the AC minutes of April 20, 2004: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support to abandon Policy Proposal 2004-1." Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:34:54 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-2 - Abandoned Message-ID: <200405201834.OAA20474@ops.arin.net> This message contains the ARIN Advisory Council's (AC) evaluation of policy proposal 2004-2: Use of HD-Ratio for IPv4 Allocations. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the AC evaluates policy proposals for community support based on comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and polling from the Public Policy Meeting. Depending on the level of community support the AC may: 1) support the proposal as is, 2) work with the author to revise the proposal, 3) abandon the policy due to lack of community support. Policy proposals that have gained community support as is or through revision will be posted to last call. In the event that the Advisory Council abandons the proposal, the author may elect to use the last call petition process to challenge the AC's determination. The following is a link to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process; for petition details please refer to the section called "Last Call Petition Process": http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Per the AC minutes of April 20, 2004: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support to abandon Policy Proposal 2004-2." Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:38:12 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-4 - Abandoned Message-ID: <200405201838.OAA21654@ops.arin.net> This message contains the ARIN Advisory Council's (AC) evaluation of policy proposal 2004-4: Purpose and Scope of ARIN WHOIS Directory. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the AC evaluates policy proposals for community support based on comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and polling from the Public Policy Meeting. Depending on the level of community support the AC may: 1) support the proposal as is, 2) work with the author to revise the proposal, 3) abandon the policy due to lack of community support. Policy proposals that have gained community support as is or through revision will be posted to last call. In the event that the Advisory Council abandons the proposal, the author may elect to use the last call petition process to challenge the AC's determination. The following is a link to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process; for petition details please refer to the section called "Last Call Petition Process": http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Per the AC minutes of April 20, 2004: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support to abandon Policy Proposal 2004-4." Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 20 14:40:51 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 - to be Revised Message-ID: <200405201840.OAA22406@ops.arin.net> This message contains the ARIN Advisory Council's (AC) evaluation of policy proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the AC evaluates policy proposals for community support based on comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and polling from the Public Policy Meeting. Depending on the level of community support the AC may: 1) support the proposal as is, 2) work with the author to revise the proposal, 3) abandon the policy due to lack of community support. Policy proposals that have gained community support as is or through revision will be posted to last call. In the event that the Advisory Council abandons the proposal, the author may elect to use the last call petition process to challenge the AC's determination. The following is a link to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process; for petition details please refer to the section called "Last Call Petition Process": http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Per the AC minutes of April 20, 2004: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that the community wants the AC to work with the author to revise Policy Proposal 2004-3." Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From stacy at hilander.com Thu May 20 14:42:34 2004 From: stacy at hilander.com (stacy at hilander.com) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:42:34 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 In-Reply-To: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> References: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: <1085078554.40acfc1aa1c58@www.hilander.com> Hi All, I support this policy change wholeheartedly. /Stacy Taylor Quoting Member Services : > This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal. > > The Advisory Council has determined that there was community support > for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments collected > during this last call period. > > Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will > expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004. > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ####################################### > > > Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes > > Author: ARIN Advisory Council > > Policy term: permanent > > Policy statement: > > A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at > least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years" > will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years". > > B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the > ARIN region or..." > > Rationale: > > These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to acknowledge > the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also they further > stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service > providers in the ARIN region. > > The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6 > Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document: > > 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > organization must: > > a) be an LIR; > > b) not be an end site; > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will > assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single > aggregated address allocation; and > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organizations within two years. > > The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is available > here: > > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html > > Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification > > !DSPAM:40acf6a089461161118278! > > > From william at elan.net Mon May 24 15:40:41 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 12:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] Question on policy evaluation process and last call petition Message-ID: I have a question if policy evaluation process allows for last call petitions for policies that are presented by AC. It seems that it doesn't this creates a serious flow in the process as it allows AC to take over a policy and present it and even get quite positive response but then drop it without allowing anybody to question their judgement.. Obviously we have an example right in front of us in policy 2003-16 which received fairly positive reaction on last meeting (13:2 for it) but AC wants to drop it. I note that while AC is considered an author, there seems to have been disagreement in AC on if this policy should be dropped so perhaps somebody from AC (but not AC as a whole) can be allowed to petition for it or alternatively since this policy was being worked as means of expressing desires of 2003-1 and 2003-2 proposals, perhaps author of one of those can be allowed to petition. I do hope this policy does not die because it has support of substantial portion of the community and AC is not really doing good job in deciding in represening these views when they say "there exists consensus to abandon the proposal" Also I'll be petitioning for 2003-9 within next couple days. Currently I'm trying to find time (I was in IETF WG meeting last week and NANOG is this week and I had reunion to go to on weekend) to update the history page I made year ago when same thing happened with AC dropping all private proposals presented at meeting. In any case I wanted to find if its ok if I publish the response by ARIN legal council that was forwarded to me two months ago or if its considered ARIN private work document that can not be disclosed. Also I want to know if 5 days from the announcementto drop policy to do petition is considered 5 working days or any 5 days, usually for companies number of days is considered to mean workdays (no weekend), but ARIN is not company but non-profit ORG so this is not clear. To me its important because if its 5 normal days I maybe one day too late if I can only start petition after NANOG meeting. It does seem that it would be better to just specify a week (instead of 5 days) as it drops this issue with meaning of the day all together. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From richardj at arin.net Mon May 24 17:07:52 2004 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Question on policy evaluation process and last call petition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200405242108.RAA16283@ops.arin.net> William, > I have a question if policy evaluation process allows for last call > petitions for policies that are presented by AC. The Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process states that, "the author may elect to use the 'last call petition' process to advance their proposal." In the event that the author of a policy proposal is a member of the ARIN Advisory Council, it does not preclude that person from electing to use the last call petition process. > In any case I wanted to find if its ok if I publish the response by > ARIN legal council that was forwarded to me two months ago or if its > considered ARIN private work document that can not be disclosed. ARIN staff may coordinate the release of this information upon request. > Also I want to know if 5 days from the announcementto drop policy to > do petition is considered 5 working days or any 5 days The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process states: "Within five working days of the Advisory Council's notification to the Public Policy Mailing list stating their intention that a policy proposal be abandoned, the author may elect to use the "last call petition" process to advance their proposal." The process document states that it is five "working days." The notification message to the public policy mailing list stating the Advisory Council's intent to abandon 2003-9 was sent on Thursday, May 20, 2004. The five working day period in this case will expire on Thursday, May 27, 2004. The full description of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From william at elan.net Thu May 27 14:32:07 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] Last Call Petition Vote request on Policy Proposal 2003-9 (Whois Acceptalble Use) Message-ID: As an author of the proposal 2003-9 which is currently being considered for abandonment due latest action by ARIN AC, I'm asking for people who support this policy proposal to reply to this post or otherwise post to the list on ppml stating your support and to send email to petition at arin.net confirming that within the next 10 days. As specified in the ARIN Internet Policy Evaluation Process this is an effort to advance the proposal through "Last Call Petition Process". The policy proposal text is available at http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_9.html Full history of this proposal with previous versions and with summary of the activities related to this proposal together with centrally collected copies of ARIN AC and Public Policy Meetings minutes can be found at http://www.elan.net/~william/arin_whoisaup_history.htm The proposal tries to deal with current situation that standard ARIN whois queries have no data protection and people are free to use the data obtained that way any any way they want including for sending unsoliciated emails and for unsolicited phone calls by marketeers (and both happened to me and were specifically result of arin data). I believe my position that we dont want arin whois data to be used in this way is supported by majority. Additionally proposal addresses some issues with bulk whois access providing for standard and expanded process of how this data can be obtained and allowing for bulk whois data to be received by individuals (current bulk whois only allows access to organizations). I note that this policy is being considered for abandonment because possibly there was not enough participation to show support for it during last public policy meeting in April (although majority of those who voted were in support for it). In fact this was the very last public policy proposal on the last day of the meeting just several hours before it were to end and I very much felt that there was certain apathy to participation as people were simply tired. As a result there were less then 10 people voting total. However during previous meeting the same policy proposal with almost same text (the only change was removal of legal language as was requested by the AC) received more then 25 votes for it as well as during previous meetings there was shown equal or larger support for having unified whois aup as well. The comments received from participants in regards to text of the AUP were all included when authoring current version of the proposal. and it would be bad if this effort to improve current whois access procedures and policies were to be abandoned which I have worked on for more then year now. I also note that the only opposition shown during latest meeting was from chair of the AC who thinks the policy is unenforceable. I disagree and can point to many cases where registry whois AUPs have been enforced including by legal means if necessary. Additionally on last meeting there was some discussion on how strong the AUP should be and what ARIN should do in cases of violations. I have specifially worded proposal in such a way as to remove actual legal text and to let ARIN council decided this. I'm not against stronger action by ARIN if ARIN council thinks this should be included as part of the AUP text, that is fine. I'm however against having these actions specifially spelled out as part of the proposal text and support Leo Bicknell's position that separate ARIN policy should deal with what actions are appropriate to be taken in regards to violations of ARIN policies. P.S. My apologies for sending this call petition request so late, I know its already almost 11:30pm here and its the last day when I can send this petition. I did note that however before that I would be doing it this week. Also I'll be making small reminder about this petition on Tuesday, the reason is that Monday is a holiday and I think many may choose to leave for vacation tomorrow and may not return before Tuesday and as such may not notice this post when they come back in next week. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From adb at onramp.ca Fri May 28 10:08:02 2004 From: adb at onramp.ca (Anthony DeBoer) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:08:02 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Last Call Petition Vote request on Policy Proposal 2003-9 (Whois Acceptalble Use) In-Reply-To: ; from william@elan.net on Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:32:07AM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20040528100802.U22299@onramp.ca> william(at)elan.net wrote: > As an author of the proposal 2003-9 which is currently being considered > for abandonment due latest action by ARIN AC, I'm asking for people who > support this policy proposal to reply to this post or otherwise post to > the list on ppml stating your support and to send email to petition at arin.net > confirming that within the next 10 days. ... I support this proposal. Although keeping spammers from using our WHOIS contact information may be a lost cause, any future chance of recovering the situation does hinge on at least having the equivalent of a "No Trespassing" sign on the database. -- Anthony DeBoer Onramp Technical Support From owen at delong.com Fri May 28 11:28:22 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:28:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] I support resurecting 2003-9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1085732902@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> I believe that 2003-9 has enough support that it should be further discussed. I don't think abandoning it due to apathy based on the last meeting is the correct choice. There was far too much apathy at the last meeting. Owen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Fri May 28 14:36:14 2004 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:36:14 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Last Call Petition Vote request on Policy Proposal 200 3-9 (Whois Acceptalble Use) Message-ID: adb at onramp.ca wrote... >william(at)elan.net wrote: >> As an author of the proposal 2003-9 which is currently being considered >> for abandonment due latest action by ARIN AC, I'm asking for people who >> support this policy proposal to reply to this post or otherwise post to >> the list on ppml stating your support and to send email to petition at arin.net >> confirming that within the next 10 days. ... >I support this proposal. I also support this proposal. >Although keeping spammers from using our WHOIS contact information may be >a lost cause, any future chance of recovering the situation does hinge on >at least having the equivalent of a "No Trespassing" sign on the database. I felt it important to note that I concur with Anthony. From gih at telstra.net Fri May 28 17:07:20 2004 From: gih at telstra.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 07:07:20 +1000 Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 In-Reply-To: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> References: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040529065625.01d7eec0@kahuna.telstra.net> In drawing from experience in the APNIC region it is not entirely clear whether section 5.1.1. bullet c) requires that the organization provide global IPv6 Public Internet connectivity services to its clients, or whether the organization may provide private services using IPv6 to its clients. To resolve this, it may be useful to add some clarification to this document, perhaps by adding a definition of "IPv6 connectivity" into the definition section of this document, so as to make it explicit as to whether the policy applies only in the context of the IPv6 Public Internet, or in any IPv6 connectivity service context. regards, Geoff Huston At 04:15 AM 21/05/2004, Member Services wrote: >This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal. > >The Advisory Council has determined that there was community support >for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments collected >during this last call period. > >Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will >expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004. > >Member Services >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > >####################################### > > >Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes > >Author: ARIN Advisory Council > >Policy term: permanent > >Policy statement: > >A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at >least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years" >will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years". > >B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the >ARIN region or..." > >Rationale: > >These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to acknowledge >the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also they further >stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service >providers in the ARIN region. > >The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6 >Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document: > >5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria > >To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an >organization must: > >a) be an LIR; > >b) not be an end site; > >c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will >assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single >aggregated address allocation; and > >d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other >organizations within two years. > >The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is available >here: > >http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html > >Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification From bmalm at idngh.com Sun May 30 09:45:12 2004 From: bmalm at idngh.com (bmalm at idngh.com) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:45:12 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040529065625.01d7eec0@kahuna.telstra.net> References: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> <6.0.1.1.2.20040529065625.01d7eec0@kahuna.telstra.net> Message-ID: <1085924712.40b9e568bef99@www.idngh.com> According to qualification criterion d) in section 5.1.1, the IPv6 applicant must "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations...." How do we ensure conformance to the plan presented, at least to an appreciable extent? Are we going to make conformance a condition for further IPv6 space acquisition? Just thinking aloud... Cheers... Bernard Malm IDN Quoting Geoff Huston : > In drawing from experience in the APNIC region it is not entirely clear > whether section 5.1.1. bullet c) requires that the organization provide > global IPv6 Public Internet connectivity services to its clients, or > whether the organization may provide private services using IPv6 to its > clients. > > To resolve this, it may be useful to add some clarification to this > document, perhaps by adding a definition of "IPv6 connectivity" into the > definition section of this document, so as to make it explicit as to > whether the policy applies only in the context of the IPv6 Public > Internet, or in any IPv6 connectivity service context. > > regards, > > Geoff Huston > > At 04:15 AM 21/05/2004, Member Services wrote: > >This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal. > > > >The Advisory Council has determined that there was community support > >for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments collected > >during this last call period. > > > >Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will > >expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004. > > > >Member Services > >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > >####################################### > > > > > >Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes > > > >Author: ARIN Advisory Council > > > >Policy term: permanent > > > >Policy statement: > > > >A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at > >least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years" > >will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years". > > > >B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the > >ARIN region or..." > > > >Rationale: > > > >These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to acknowledge > >the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also they further > >stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service > >providers in the ARIN region. > > > >The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6 > >Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document: > > > >5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria > > > >To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > >organization must: > > > >a) be an LIR; > > > >b) not be an end site; > > > >c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will > >assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single > >aggregated address allocation; and > > > >d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > >organizations within two years. > > > >The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is available > >here: > > > >http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html > > > >Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification > > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ From muryj at goldengate.net Sun May 30 16:54:00 2004 From: muryj at goldengate.net (Mury Johnson) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:54:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 In-Reply-To: <1085078554.40acfc1aa1c58@www.hilander.com> References: <200405201815.OAA16301@ops.arin.net> <1085078554.40acfc1aa1c58@www.hilander.com> Message-ID: <20040530152451.T65962@hail.goldengate.net> As the original author of this policy proposal I have a couple questions/comments. Please note that this current form has almost nothing left of my proposals. It seems that this policy change has been watered down to the lowest common denominator of desired change. It seems as though every issue with some teeth has been removed due to different people having different problems with it. That's fine, but I don't think the policy proposal in it's current form is going to do a whole lot to encourage the adoption of IPv6. Sure one hurdle has been lowered, but there are other outstanding issues. In addition, I find it slightly amusing that a lot of the opposition to my original proposal was that the time periods for waiving fees and extending the time frame for the 200 customers was too long. People were commenting that any time extensions should be a year or two at the most! Well here we are over a year later and to the best of my knowledge IPv6 hasn't taken any huge steps toward common deployment, and the proposal to do something about it has been delayed over and over. Please don't take that the wrong way. I am not trying to blame anyone. I'm merely trying to point out that it is taking too long to do too little. If this policy proposal is adopted can it at least be done in conjunction with a significant fee waiver? Say... the first 1000 ARIN->LIR blocks are free for four years... The fees have already been waived 2-3 times over the last four years. The fear that ARIN is going to lose out on this big pot of money is unfounded. Or, how about every current customer that is already paying ARIN fees for IPv4 can get a free IPv6 block? Everyone is comfortable in their IPv4 world. There have been numerous arguments that the technology will be developed and then the demand will come. That hasn't happened either. How many years need to go by before people are going to be willing to acknowledge that IPv6 needs a good kick in the ass in ARINland? People have lost their tolerance for being the front runners in hopes of cornering market share. The majority of LIRs are going to wait until moving to IPv6 is either risk-free or until everyone else is doing it and they need to. Put a little meat back into this policy change, or combine it with a *real* waiver of fees. Just my thoughts... Mury > Quoting Member Services : > > > This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal. > > > > The Advisory Council has determined that there was community support > > for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments collected > > during this last call period. > > > > Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will > > expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004. > > > > Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > ####################################### > > > > > > Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes > > > > Author: ARIN Advisory Council > > > > Policy term: permanent > > > > Policy statement: > > > > A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at > > least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years" > > will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years". > > > > B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the > > ARIN region or..." > > > > Rationale: > > > > These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to acknowledge > > the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also they further > > stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service > > providers in the ARIN region. > > > > The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6 > > Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document: > > > > 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organization must: > > > > a) be an LIR; > > > > b) not be an end site; > > > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will > > assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single > > aggregated address allocation; and > > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > > organizations within two years. > > > > The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is available > > here: > > > > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html > > > > Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification > > > > !DSPAM:40acf6a089461161118278! > > > > > > > > >