From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Nov 8 13:55:54 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:55:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <20041108185554.GA88631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Based on the comments here, I offer up this reworked proposal. It includes many of the text changes, limits the scope to draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt (which I believe is the one more interesting to ARIN as a group), and includes the major issues that ARIN, as a group, sees with the proposal. Draft Text: ARIN shall send a letter to the IETF IPv6 Working Group, and any other entities the BoT considers relevant, with the following statement. ] ARIN on behalf of the ARIN membership and constituents believes ] that the proposal in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt will be ] harmful to the future of the IPv6 Internet. ARIN recommends that ] this draft NOT be adopted by the IETF. ] ] The particular issues seen by the ARIN membership and constituents ] that relate to ARIN are: ] ] - The proposal calls for a a new "RIR" type function by fiat, rather ] than using the existing processes to create these sorts of ] organizations. ] ] - The proposal calls for an RIR function to be provided at no fee ] to the end user, and with no method of funding the RIR functions. ] ARIN believes the IETF should not discuss fees in engineering ] drafts. ] ] - The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region ] about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet. ] ] - If the prefixes in the proposal become globally routed by major ] Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's ] viability. Does that language make people a bit happier? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Nov 9 05:51:59 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:51:59 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <20041108185554.GA88631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > ] ARIN on behalf of the ARIN membership and constituents believes > ] that the proposal in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt will be > ] harmful to the future of the IPv6 Internet. ARIN recommends that > ] this draft NOT be adopted by the IETF. > ] > ] The particular issues seen by the ARIN membership and constituents > ] that relate to ARIN are: I don't like this part. And I don't see how ARIN as an organization can make this kind of decision before the next member meeting. > ] - The proposal calls for a a new "RIR" type function by fiat, rather > ] than using the existing processes to create these sorts of > ] organizations. Seems like a valid complaint. > ] - The proposal calls for an RIR function to be provided at no fee > ] to the end user, and with no method of funding the RIR functions. > ] ARIN believes the IETF should not discuss fees in engineering > ] drafts. Seems to be picking nits. IETF drafts can say anything about anything. It's the RFCs that don't discuss fees and I would hope that is sorted out by the normal RFC editing process. > ] - The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region > ] about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet. This is confusing to me but then I haven't looked at the draft recently. Perhaps you could say what it is in the proposal that would create confusion. > ] - If the prefixes in the proposal become globally routed by major > ] Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's > ] viability. I've always hated arguments that boil down to "If you do this it will hurt me". If you feel strongly about commenting on the draft, then please send your comments directly to the IETF mailing list. If you talked to people at the ARIN meeting and want to pass on their concerns then please do so. But I think you are wasting your time with this idea of drafting a letter that ARIN in toto will send to the IETF. I don't think the ARIN membership decision making cycle time is conducive to commenting on IETF drafts. If you really feel that ARIN needs greater involvement in IETF activities then I suggest that we should urge the AC or the Trustees or the ARIN employees to take on that role. --Michael Dillon From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 9 08:41:28 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:41:28 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A522@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> I agree with all of Michael's comments below. Bill Darte ARIN AC CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis Michael Dillon wrote the following responding to Leo Bicknell's draft: > > > ] ARIN on behalf of the ARIN membership and constituents believes > > ] that the proposal in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt will be > > ] harmful to the future of the IPv6 Internet. ARIN > recommends that > > ] this draft NOT be adopted by the IETF. > > ] > > ] The particular issues seen by the ARIN membership and > constituents > > ] that relate to ARIN are: > > I don't like this part. And I don't see how ARIN as an > organization can make this kind of decision before the next > member meeting. > > > > ] - The proposal calls for a a new "RIR" type function by fiat, > rather > > ] than using the existing processes to create these sorts of > > ] organizations. > > Seems like a valid complaint. > > > ] - The proposal calls for an RIR function to be > provided at no fee > > ] to the end user, and with no method of funding the > RIR functions. > > ] ARIN believes the IETF should not discuss fees in engineering > > ] drafts. > > Seems to be picking nits. IETF drafts can say anything about > anything. It's the RFCs that don't discuss fees and I would > hope that is sorted out by the normal RFC editing process. > > > ] - The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region > > ] about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet. > > This is confusing to me but then I haven't looked at the > draft recently. Perhaps you could say what it is in the > proposal that would create > confusion. > > > ] - If the prefixes in the proposal become globally > routed by major > > ] Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's > > ] viability. > > I've always hated arguments that boil down to "If you do this > it will hurt me". > > If you feel strongly about commenting on the draft, then > please send your comments directly to the IETF mailing list. > If you talked to people at the ARIN meeting and want to pass > on their concerns then > please do so. But I think you are wasting your time with this > idea of drafting a letter that ARIN in toto will send to the IETF. > > I don't think the ARIN membership decision making cycle time > is conducive to commenting on IETF drafts. If you really feel > that ARIN needs greater involvement in IETF activities then I > suggest that we should urge the AC or the Trustees or the > ARIN employees to take on that role. > > --Michael Dillon > > From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Nov 9 11:48:05 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:48:05 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20041108185554.GA88631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20041109164804.GE40147@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:51:59AM +0000, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > I don't like this part. And I don't see how ARIN as an organization > can make this kind of decision before the next member meeting. One of the items to come out of the meeting was that we need a process for ARIN to make statements. Taking IPv6 out of the argument, the original need was by ICANN. ICANN came to ARIN and said, "ARIN, ICANN would like to know how ARIN thinks IPv6 space should be allocated from IANA to ARIN and the other RIR's, please tell us your opinion." A bunch of people scratched their heads and asked the basic question, "how do we get the ARIN membership to agree on a recommendation to ICANN?" Well, the only process we had to get the members to agree on anything was the policy proposal process. So, a proposal was generated, 2004-8, available at http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html. Many of us voiced an immediate concern. This is not an ARIN policy. It is not binding on ARIN. It does not handle how ARIN deals with its constituency. It is ARIN, as a group, speaking to anther group. An interesting question (in part due to the proposal being in the old format) is should this recommendation go into the NRPM. If it does, and ICANN chooses a different policy due to input from the other RIR's, will we have to go through the policy process to change it? In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process outside the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements", "ARIN Open Letters", "ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you might want to call them. Also, due to the fact that deadlines for these comments are imposed outside of ARIN (by ICANN, or in the IPv6 case the IETF comment period) the process needs to be "quicker". That may still require a members meeting, but at the least there should be a way to get it out in a single member's meeting. To come back to this IPv6 statement. This is a proposed statement for that new, as yet non-existent process. Others (including myself) are working on drafting the process, but I wanted to get people thinking about this issue in parallel so one did not need to hold up the other. > > ] - The proposal calls for a a new "RIR" type function by fiat, > rather > > ] than using the existing processes to create these sorts of > > ] organizations. > > Seems like a valid complaint. > > > ] - The proposal calls for an RIR function to be provided at no fee > > ] to the end user, and with no method of funding the RIR functions. > > ] ARIN believes the IETF should not discuss fees in engineering > > ] drafts. > > Seems to be picking nits. IETF drafts can say anything about anything. > It's the RFCs that don't discuss fees and I would hope that is sorted > out by the normal RFC editing process. ARIN takes a strong position of not allowing fee discussion in its own policy. I think it needs to take an equally strong position on this topic. If this statement isn't removed from the final draft it makes it much easier for future drafts to say things like "RIR's won't charge more than $200 for an IPv4 allocation." > > ] - The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region > > ] about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet. > > This is confusing to me but then I haven't looked at the draft recently. > Perhaps you could say what it is in the proposal that would create > confusion. The proposal gives out guaranteed globally unique addresses. ARIN gives out globally unique addresses. Only one group (is supposed to be) routable. > If you feel strongly about commenting on the draft, then please > send your comments directly to the IETF mailing list. If you talked to > people at the ARIN meeting and want to pass on their concerns then > please do so. But I think you are wasting your time with this idea > of drafting a letter that ARIN in toto will send to the IETF. I understand your opinion, and disagree. However, the great thing about the ARIN process is being consensus based, and I'm not sure enough others have weighed in yet to really know how people are leaning. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 9 12:07:08 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:07:08 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A529@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > ICANN came to ARIN and said, "ARIN, ICANN would like to know > how ARIN thinks IPv6 space should be allocated from IANA to > ARIN and the other RIR's, please tell us your opinion." > > A bunch of people scratched their heads and asked the basic > question, "how do we get the ARIN membership to agree on a > recommendation to ICANN?" Well, the only process we had to > get the members to agree on anything was the policy proposal > process. So, a proposal was generated, 2004-8, available at > http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html. > > In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process > outside the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements", > "ARIN Open Letters", "ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you > might want to call them. Also, due to the fact that deadlines > for these comments are imposed outside of ARIN (by ICANN, or > in the IPv6 case the IETF comment > period) the process needs to be "quicker". That may still > require a members meeting, but at the least there should be a > way to get it out in a single member's meeting. > > To come back to this IPv6 statement. This is a proposed > statement for that new, as yet non-existent process. Others > (including myself) are working on drafting the process, but I > wanted to get people thinking about this issue in parallel so > one did not need to hold up the other. I understand and agree that another mechanism for 'formal' communication by ARIN is needed. Indeed, we are working on this, but this process must be vetted by the ARIN community especially if it is to happen in a timely manner. Our region works on a protocol of consensus and we need a way that the community recognizes consensus. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work in parallel to find a way to communicate important concerns to IETF over the IPv6 issue at hand. I just don't think a 'formal ARIN' message is possible at this time. Bill Darte ARIN AC CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Nov 9 12:16:09 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:16:09 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A529@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A529@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20041109171609.GA43948@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:07:08AM -0600, Bill Darte wrote: > That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work in parallel to find a way to > communicate important concerns to IETF over the IPv6 issue at hand. I just > don't think a 'formal ARIN' message is possible at this time. Point taken. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From plzak at arin.net Tue Nov 9 12:20:37 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:20:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <20041109164804.GE40147@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20041109172038.08EEE1FE8A@mercury.arin.net> Comments below. Ray > > ICANN came to ARIN and said, "ARIN, ICANN would like to know how > ARIN thinks IPv6 space should be allocated from IANA to ARIN and > the other RIR's, please tell us your opinion." > Not true. This actually started with the RIRs. > > A bunch of people scratched their heads and asked the basic question, > "how do we get the ARIN membership to agree on a recommendation to > ICANN?" Well, the only process we had to get the members to agree > on anything was the policy proposal process. So, a proposal was > generated, 2004-8, available at http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html. > This is the mechanism that was used to do the IPv4 IANA to RIR policy last year. > > Many of us voiced an immediate concern. This is not an ARIN policy. > It is not binding on ARIN. It does not handle how ARIN deals with > its constituency. It is ARIN, as a group, speaking to anther group. > An interesting question (in part due to the proposal being in the > old format) is should this recommendation go into the NRPM. If it > does, and ICANN chooses a different policy due to input from the > other RIR's, will we have to go through the policy process to change > it? > It will only be a global policy if all of the RIR communities agree to it. There are provisions in the ASO MoU which preclude the ICANN board from arbitrarily changing any proposed global policy presented to them. > > In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process outside > the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements", "ARIN Open Letters", > "ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you might want to call them. > Also, due to the fact that deadlines for these comments are imposed > outside of ARIN (by ICANN, or in the IPv6 case the IETF comment > period) the process needs to be "quicker". That may still require > a members meeting, but at the least there should be a way to get > it out in a single member's meeting. > Experience has shown that regardless of a global policy or a globally harmonized policy there will be several iterations of meetings in all the RIRs to reach a consensus as to what to forward to the ICANN board through the ASO Address Council. > From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 9 12:24:10 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:24:10 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Whether a formal statement is possible right now or not....I applaud Leo for bringing this issue up as a discussion point on the ppml and not just to the IETF mailing list. Leo- since you have clearly read this proposal in detail. Can you please clarify your interpretations on the following: You wrote: "The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet." 1. Can you clarify what specifically could be confusing? You Wrote: "If the prefixes in the proposal become globally routed by major Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's viability." 2. How do you see this will impact ARIN's viability? Thank you for your time Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:07 AM To: 'Leo Bicknell'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > ICANN came to ARIN and said, "ARIN, ICANN would like to know > how ARIN thinks IPv6 space should be allocated from IANA to > ARIN and the other RIR's, please tell us your opinion." > > A bunch of people scratched their heads and asked the basic > question, "how do we get the ARIN membership to agree on a > recommendation to ICANN?" Well, the only process we had to > get the members to agree on anything was the policy proposal > process. So, a proposal was generated, 2004-8, available at > http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html. > > In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process > outside the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements", > "ARIN Open Letters", "ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you > might want to call them. Also, due to the fact that deadlines > for these comments are imposed outside of ARIN (by ICANN, or > in the IPv6 case the IETF comment > period) the process needs to be "quicker". That may still > require a members meeting, but at the least there should be a > way to get it out in a single member's meeting. > > To come back to this IPv6 statement. This is a proposed > statement for that new, as yet non-existent process. Others > (including myself) are working on drafting the process, but I > wanted to get people thinking about this issue in parallel so > one did not need to hold up the other. I understand and agree that another mechanism for 'formal' communication by ARIN is needed. Indeed, we are working on this, but this process must be vetted by the ARIN community especially if it is to happen in a timely manner. Our region works on a protocol of consensus and we need a way that the community recognizes consensus. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work in parallel to find a way to communicate important concerns to IETF over the IPv6 issue at hand. I just don't think a 'formal ARIN' message is possible at this time. Bill Darte ARIN AC CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Nov 9 12:37:28 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:37:28 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A529@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: > That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work in parallel to find a way to > communicate important concerns to IETF over the IPv6 issue at hand. I just > don't think a 'formal ARIN' message is possible at this time. If we are just looking for a communication mechanism, then there are much simpler possibilities. For instance, consider how Einar summarizes the mailing list discussions about proposed policies. Could we do something like this: 1. IETF asks ARIN formally for comment. 2. ARIN posts a request for comments on the PPML list 3. People say what they have to say. 4. An ARIN editor collects it all, maybe summarizes it and posts it to the IETF mailing list with pointers to the original discussion in the ARIN list archives. What does this achieve? Mainly, ARIN members can raise their points in a familiar discussion forum without having to find an IETF mailing list, subscribe to it, and deal with whatever local IETF customs and etiquette demand. The information gets aired, collected and communicated. Do we need anything more than this? --Michael Dillon From randy at psg.com Tue Nov 9 12:41:16 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:41:16 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A529@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <16785.316.882038.222493@ran.psg.com> > I understand and agree that another mechanism for 'formal' communication by > ARIN is needed. perhaps another mechanism to communicate an arin decision to outside would be useful. though i would think email is still a pretty good medium. but how the decision is made must be open, inclusive, and prudent. we have such a mechanism. how would a new mechanism be different and better? randy From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Nov 9 12:41:14 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:41:14 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <20041109174114.GA44492@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:24:10AM -0800, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Leo- since you have clearly read this proposal in detail. Can you please > clarify your interpretations on the following: I will do my best. > You wrote: "The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region > about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet." > > 1. Can you clarify what specifically could be confusing? The barrier to a prefix being on the Public Internet is the filtering practices of ISP's. When you look at the filtering practices of ISP's, you see a set of concerns. For an individual ISP, I believe in priority order they are: 1) Is the request technically feesable? That is, can I do it and not break my own network, my other customer's networks, and my peers networks. 2) Is the request economically feesable? That is, even if I can do it, can I do it in a way that will scale. 3) What does the community think about my practice? With this proposal (ula, central registration of prefixes), I believe the answers most people would come up with are: 1) Yes. From a technical perspective they are guaranteed to be globally unique. This should never break my own network or anyone elses. Indeed, this is the very point. Those who need a portion of this address space can use it without conflict, and interconnect with each other without conflict. 2) Probably. For all of my customers with their own space today I carry at least one, if not 5, 10, or even 100 routes in IPv4. If I carry 1 IPv6 route, be it from ARIN or from the central registry that's probably no more of a burden on my devices or staff, and thus no more cost. 3) Well, some IETF drafts say it's a "bad idea". My peers, well, I'm not sure yet. It's also interesting to look at a picture: Customer 4--link 6--ISP1----link 1----ISP2--link 5--Customer 3 | | link 2 link 3 | | Customer 1--link 4--Customer 2 These prefixes are specifically allowed for link 4, that's their whole purpose. I think it's easy to extend that, via VPN services or via direct announcement to include link's 3 and link 5 (same ISP, they can do what they want internally) and similarly link 6 and link 2. So the only link these are rigidly supposed to be filtered on is link 1. Confusing? I think so. What happens when two ISP's open up the filter on link 1 to allow cross selling (think cross provider MPLS VPN's today). So now, I can use these addresses between Sprint and UUNet, but not Level 3. I can use them on my private, talk to 100 other companies network, but not on the public internet. I think it will be very confusing to many smaller network administrators. Today it's easy to cut off any 1918 confusion. "Everyone gets the same block, if we routed it there would be a collision, so we can't route it." This eliminates the possibility of collision, and thus the strongest argument against routing the space. > You Wrote: "If the prefixes in the proposal become globally routed by major > Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's viability." > > 2. How do you see this will impact ARIN's viability? This is a chained result. If you believe the worst case of what I wrote before, that these prefixes /are/ globally routed on the public internet then you have an interesting situation. A party can get IP's from ARIN, complete with doing justification and paying yearly fees, or it can get them for free from a web site with no justification. I suspect almost everyone will go for the free, no paperwork option. If that's true, ARIN has no income from IPv6 addresses. Of course ARIN wouldn't be allocating any anyway, so perhaps ARIN would simply no longer be needed (for that function). -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 9 14:23:27 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:23:27 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A52B@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> > > I understand and agree that another mechanism for 'formal' > > communication by ARIN is needed. > > perhaps another mechanism to communicate an arin decision to > outside would be useful. though i would think email is still > a pretty good medium. The means of transmission is not the issue. > > but how the decision is made must be open, inclusive, and > prudent. we have such a mechanism. how would a new mechanism > be different and better? > Indeed, but the mechanism that is formalized for determining community consensus deals with policy proposal evaluation. If we are to create another and 'perhaps' more streamlined means of gathering input without waiting for a Public Policy meeting, then another mechanism needs to formulated and ratified it seems to me. Bill Darte From randy at psg.com Tue Nov 9 15:01:04 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:01:04 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A52B@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <16785.8704.324236.257952@ran.psg.com> > If we are to create another and 'perhaps' more streamlined means > of gathering input without waiting for a Public Policy meeting, > then another mechanism needs to formulated and ratified it seems > to me. and why should we wish to avoid face to face and email discussion of matters of sufficient seriousity that an outside party has asked us for a position? randy From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 9 15:05:26 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:05:26 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <234753D3E50B3AD98BAD7C02@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> > You wrote: "The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region > about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet." > > 1. Can you clarify what specifically could be confusing? > I can?t speak for Leo, but, the obvious source of confusion in my mind is that when presented with a free /32 and a /32 that costs money from ARIN, someone running a router somewhere is going to ask the obvious question of ?Why is my free globally unique /32 any less routable than my ARIN /32?? When he comes to the conclusion that given global uniqueness, there is absolutely no technical reason whatsoever and that the rest is essentially hand-waving by the IVTF, it won?t be long before a discussion with his ISP leads to his /32 being effectively globally routed. > > You Wrote: "If the prefixes in the proposal become globally routed by > major Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's > viability." > > 2. How do you see this will impact ARIN's viability? > Well... It?s hard to justify selling IP registry services if you can go down the street and register for free. If the free prefixes remain free (I still don?t understand how this free registry is supposed to cover its operating costs), and, they become globally routable, then, why would anyone pay ARIN to register prefixes instead of simply getting them for free? No money coming in and operating expenses going out tends to lead to non-viable entities in most parts of the world. Owen From matthew.ford at bt.com Tue Nov 9 15:16:15 2004 From: matthew.ford at bt.com (matthew.ford at bt.com) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:16:15 -0000 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A700B16388A@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> On , owner-ppml at arin.net (mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net) wrote: >> You wrote: "The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN >> region about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet." >> >> 1. Can you clarify what specifically could be confusing? >> > I can?t speak for Leo, but, the obvious source of confusion > in my mind is that when presented with a free /32 and a /32 > that costs money from ARIN, someone running a router somewhere > is going to ask the obvious question of ?Why is my free globally > unique /32 any less routable than my ARIN /32?? When he comes > to the conclusion that given global uniqueness, there is absolutely > no technical reason whatsoever and that the rest is essentially > hand-waving by the IVTF, it won?t be long before a discussion > with his ISP leads to his /32 being effectively globally routed. Except that it may be a discussion with *all* ISPs that is actually required before such a prefix would be globally routed. Sounds prohibitive to me. Mat From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 9 15:28:04 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:28:04 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A700B16388A@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A700B16388A@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.sy stemhost.net> Message-ID: --On Tuesday, November 09, 2004 08:16:15 PM +0000 matthew.ford at bt.com wrote: > On , owner-ppml at arin.net (mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net) wrote: > >>> You wrote: "The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN >>> region about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet." >>> >>> 1. Can you clarify what specifically could be confusing? >>> >> I can?t speak for Leo, but, the obvious source of confusion >> in my mind is that when presented with a free /32 and a /32 >> that costs money from ARIN, someone running a router somewhere >> is going to ask the obvious question of ?Why is my free globally >> unique /32 any less routable than my ARIN /32?? When he comes >> to the conclusion that given global uniqueness, there is absolutely >> no technical reason whatsoever and that the rest is essentially >> hand-waving by the IVTF, it won?t be long before a discussion >> with his ISP leads to his /32 being effectively globally routed. > > Except that it may be a discussion with *all* ISPs that is actually > required before such a prefix would be globally routed. Sounds > prohibitive to me. > > Mat > I think Leo addressed this fairly well, but, I believe most ISPs and certainly all the ISPs that really matter for effective global routability will be faced with the following: 1. Their VPs listen to their sales force. 2. Some customer will want to use free IPv6 space to connect to the internet and ask their sales rep why not. At least one such customer will be big enough that as soon as one ISP says yes, the threat of ?If you won?t route these addresses, I?m going to a provider that will? will be meaningful. 3. Simple market economics says that as soon as one or two large providers do this, the rest will follow out of economic necessity. If they don?t, then, their customers will, and, they become irrelevant. Therefore, while I agree that getting all ISPs to agree on anything all at once is prohibitive, I believe that this structure requires all ISPs to continue to agree not to route this space all at once and, therefore, the maintenance of this structure is virtually impossible. Owen From adb at onramp.ca Tue Nov 9 15:34:41 2004 From: adb at onramp.ca (adb at onramp.ca) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:34:41 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <234753D3E50B3AD98BAD7C02@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> <234753D3E50B3AD98BAD7C02@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> Message-ID: <20041109203441.GF21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> Owen DeLong wrote: > I can?t speak for Leo, but, the obvious source of confusion > in my mind is that when presented with a free /32 and a /32 > that costs money from ARIN, someone running a router somewhere > is going to ask the obvious question of ?Why is my free globally > unique /32 any less routable than my ARIN /32?? When he comes > to the conclusion that given global uniqueness, there is absolutely > no technical reason whatsoever and that the rest is essentially > hand-waving by the IVTF, it won?t be long before a discussion > with his ISP leads to his /32 being effectively globally routed. Pay your ISP enough money and he'll BGP-announce your 192.168.xxx.0/24 prefix too, but that doesn't win you much when virtually all other players filter 1597-space. This draft appears on the face of it to be simply an IPv6 version of RFC 1597 with the added benefit of uniqueness, so that you and your new corporate brothers aren't using overlapping address space internally. (See also RFC 1627 in this regard.) The big question is how the backbone players will react, and I'll hazard a guess that all FC00::/8 prefixes will be filtered, so you won't get far with your globally-unique-but-not-globally-routable prefix. -- Anthony DeBoer From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Nov 9 15:50:41 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:50:41 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <20041109203441.GF21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> <234753D3E50B3AD98BAD7C02@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> <20041109203441.GF21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> Message-ID: <20041109205041.GA54448@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:34:41PM -0500, adb at onramp.ca wrote: > The big question is how the backbone players will react, and I'll hazard > a guess that all FC00::/8 prefixes will be filtered, so you won't get far > with your globally-unique-but-not-globally-routable prefix. Taking off my AC hat, and putting on my "work in the engineering group of a large backbone provider hat", I have yet to see a reason to recomend to my employer to filter this block, and in fact see several reasons to encourage the early, widespread use of this block as it gets us and our customers out of paying fees. Saving money is something my management understands well, and I suspect there are many other ISP's who would cooperate in order to save money as well. From a business case point of view getting out from under the oppressive thumb of the registries who want to milk us each year for thousands of dollars just to publish a whois record is a very attractive proposition. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 9 16:00:47 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:00:47 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A531@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> > > > If we are to create another and 'perhaps' more streamlined means of > > gathering input without waiting for a Public Policy meeting, then > > another mechanism needs to formulated and ratified it seems to me. > > and why should we wish to avoid face to face and email > discussion of matters of sufficient seriousity that an > outside party has asked us for a position? > > randy > Didn't say we should in fact when possible that is the preferred means. I said that for a new process for formal communication other than policy, there is no process of guaging consensus...let alone...a more streamlined process that 'perhaps' could be envisioned. There is, of course, the Board's ability to communicate on behalf of ARIN in 'emergencies' already, but I'm not talking about such urgencies either. bd From randy at psg.com Tue Nov 9 16:11:08 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:11:08 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A531@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <16785.12908.213287.602433@ran.psg.com> > Didn't say we should in fact when possible that is the preferred means. I > said that for a new process for formal communication other than policy, > there is no process of guaging consensus...let alone...a more streamlined > process that 'perhaps' could be envisioned. i think like an operator. if the old hack works, and i see no one making a case it does not, then why spend precious resources in yakking about a new hack that is 12.3% better in some corner cases? randy From mcf at uwm.edu Tue Nov 9 16:51:55 2004 From: mcf at uwm.edu (Mark McFadden) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:51:55 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <16785.8704.324236.257952@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <200411092152.iA9Lpunf001219@mailbag.com> > >> If we are to create another and 'perhaps' more streamlined means of >> gathering input without waiting for a Public Policy meeting, then >> another mechanism needs to formulated and ratified it seems to me. > >and why should we wish to avoid face to face and email discussion of >matters of sufficient seriousity that an outside party has asked us >for a position? > >randy I don't think that "avoid" is what's being suggested here. Instead, the current public policy process is open, transparent and ensures an opportunity for informed comment and consent. The question is: what happens when an organization needs input from our ommunity prior to the Arctic ice pack melting? I don't think we should "avoid" face-to-face and email conversations . . . I just think we should have an alternative mechanism for addressing requests/concerns in timeframes that are not addressed by the timeframes of the Public Policy Meeting. mark From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 9 17:38:27 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:38:27 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> You wrote:"I have yet to see a reason to recomend to my employer to filter this block, and in fact see several reasons to encourage the early, widespread use of this block as it gets us and our customers out of paying fees. Saving money is something my management understands well, and I suspect there are many other ISP's who would cooperate in order to save money as well." 1. When you look at paying 18K a year for a large block of V4 space....it seems like alot of money to some. However, when you look at the total cost of running an internet network...18K seems very miniscule. Unless I'm missing some other major fee's here....would this really be enough of a cost saver to push ISP's in the direction of using V6 over V4? Especially if you are a company who's network still has old Cisco equipment that doesnt handle V6. Those companies will first have to spend alot of money to update/replace that equipment. That takes time and money. So I guess I question the relevency of no fee structure being an encouraging factor to push companies to use V6 over V4. You wrote: "From a business case point of view getting out from under the oppressive thumb of the registries who want to milk us each year for thousands of dollars just to publish a whois record is a very attractive proposition." 2. I believe that the fee's we all pay go towards much more than just the publishing of the WHOIS records. Otherwise...I myself who am a RWHOIS user would be looking for a discount. However, I believe the money goes towards a wide variety of administrative duties that involves distribution of the IP addresses and collaberation efforts for the internet community. I dont see all these duties dissapearing even for V6. So this leads to the support of some fee structure being put in place for V6. Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:51 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:34:41PM -0500, adb at onramp.ca wrote: > The big question is how the backbone players will react, and I'll hazard > a guess that all FC00::/8 prefixes will be filtered, so you won't get far > with your globally-unique-but-not-globally-routable prefix. Taking off my AC hat, and putting on my "work in the engineering group of a large backbone provider hat", I have yet to see a reason to recomend to my employer to filter this block, and in fact see several reasons to encourage the early, widespread use of this block as it gets us and our customers out of paying fees. Saving money is something my management understands well, and I suspect there are many other ISP's who would cooperate in order to save money as well. >From a business case point of view getting out from under the oppressive thumb of the registries who want to milk us each year for thousands of dollars just to publish a whois record is a very attractive proposition. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 9 17:54:55 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:54:55 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <20041109203441.GF21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> <234753D3E50B3AD98BAD7C02@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> <20041109203441.GF21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> Message-ID: <1420F980DDA26F884C9CC06B@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> --On Tuesday, November 09, 2004 03:34:41 PM -0500 adb at onramp.ca wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> I can?t speak for Leo, but, the obvious source of confusion >> in my mind is that when presented with a free /32 and a /32 >> that costs money from ARIN, someone running a router somewhere >> is going to ask the obvious question of ?Why is my free globally >> unique /32 any less routable than my ARIN /32?? When he comes >> to the conclusion that given global uniqueness, there is absolutely >> no technical reason whatsoever and that the rest is essentially >> hand-waving by the IVTF, it won?t be long before a discussion >> with his ISP leads to his /32 being effectively globally routed. > > Pay your ISP enough money and he'll BGP-announce your 192.168.xxx.0/24 > prefix too, but that doesn't win you much when virtually all other > players filter 1597-space. > > This draft appears on the face of it to be simply an IPv6 version of > RFC 1597 with the added benefit of uniqueness, so that you and your new > corporate brothers aren't using overlapping address space internally. > (See also RFC 1627 in this regard.) > > The big question is how the backbone players will react, and I'll hazard > a guess that all FC00::/8 prefixes will be filtered, so you won't get far > with your globally-unique-but-not-globally-routable prefix. So... we absolutely agree on everything except two points: 1. You see uniqueness as a benefit in the case of site-local (RFC-1918 which deprectaed RFC-1597) space. In general, I?d even agree with this except for point 2 below. 2. You believe that ISPs will do the right thing about these prefixes. I believe that the moment ?the right thing? comes up against capitalistic greed, greed will win almost every time, especially if ignoring the right thing has no consequences. If you believe me to be wrong on this point, please cite historical examples. If you need me to cite historical examples of cases where greed has won over the right thing, please consider: NSI site-finder (only removed because ICANN forced the issue and then, greed still didn?t accept the right thing, they sued ICANN over it) Microsoft embrace and extend strategy The reasons some of us are starting to regard it as IVTF instead of IETF This is a small set of recent examples from a much much larger historical set. Owen From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Nov 9 18:04:48 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:04:48 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <20041109230448.GB60419@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:38:27PM -0800, Azinger, Marla wrote: > 1. When you look at paying 18K a year for a large block of V4 space....it > seems like alot of money to some. > However, when you look at the total cost of running an internet > network...18K seems very miniscule. > Unless I'm missing some other major fee's here....would this really be > enough of a cost saver to push ISP's in the direction of using V6 over V4? No. I don't think cost savings will push anyone from V4 to V6. That's not the interesting case. The interesting case is the company who has already decided to go IPv6 for other business drivers. They will no doubt look at the cost of migration and try to minimize it. "Free IP Addresses" vrs "Pay Money For IP Addresses" will be seen as a savings. There is another group that Woody might want to chime in about. He talked at the last meeting about the "value of the swamp" and getting early adopters into the system and soforth. Well, if there is this globally unique address space the early adopters can get for free and play, they probably will. They will probably also route it between themselves, to the extent possible. If they are successful they may bring that legacy into larger networks as IPv6 grows. > You wrote: "From a business case point of view getting out from under the > oppressive thumb of the registries who want to milk us each year > for thousands of dollars just to publish a whois record is a very > attractive proposition." This was my feeble attempt at Internet Humor. :) That said, I know a few VP's who think this way. :( [I for one welcome our ARIN overlords.] -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Tue Nov 9 18:30:43 2004 From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:30:43 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: > Owen DeLong wrote: > [SNIP] Completely agree with your post. > You see uniqueness as a benefit in the case of site-local > (RFC-1918 which deprectaed RFC-1597) space. In general, > I?d even agree with this except for point 2 below. There could have been a solution to this: a scoping mechanism that would have put a technical barrier (instead of a psychological one that can be bought as you pointed out) in the way of announcing globally unique site-local addresses on the public internet. Unfortunately, it has been canned. Michel. From adb at onramp.ca Tue Nov 9 19:13:00 2004 From: adb at onramp.ca (Anthony DeBoer) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:13:00 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <1420F980DDA26F884C9CC06B@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B03C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> <234753D3E50B3AD98BAD7C02@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> <20041109203441.GF21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> <1420F980DDA26F884C9CC06B@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> Message-ID: <20041110001300.GJ21982@raven.internal.onramp.ca> Owen DeLong wrote: > 2. You believe that ISPs will do the right thing about these > prefixes. I believe that the moment ?the right thing? > comes up against capitalistic greed, greed will win > almost every time, especially if ignoring the right > thing has no consequences. If you believe me to be > wrong on this point, please cite historical examples. How about Sprint, several years ago, very heavily filtering their BGP tables to keep them at a manageable size? The financial thing to set against "free" IPv6 allocations would be the cost of routing an out-of-control IPv6 table. Possibly the hardware has gotten better faster, and this time around router designers should be better able to predict the size of table they're going to need to handle, but it is definitely a cost that has to be considered. Greed may lead to some ISPs filtering the "new swamp" space in order to save having to spend more money on routers; note in particular that the anti-aggregation policy in this draft cuts against any effort to try and have a more sensibly-aggregated table going from v4 to v6. Unfortunately, the magnitude of routing costs vs. the savings between the two flavours of IPv6 allocation are something I can't quantify. The fact that the costs hit the backbone vs. edge users differently is going to lead to interesting politics and compensation-modes, though. -- Anthony DeBoer From william at elan.net Wed Nov 10 01:47:47 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:47:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A529@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Bill Darte wrote: > I understand and agree that another mechanism for 'formal' communication by > ARIN is needed. Indeed, we are working on this, but this process must be > vetted by the ARIN community especially if it is to happen in a timely > manner. Our region works on a protocol of consensus and we need a way that > the community recognizes consensus. > > That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work in parallel to find a way to > communicate important concerns to IETF over the IPv6 issue at hand. I just > don't think a 'formal ARIN' message is possible at this time. I second that and agree that because this "mechanism" does not exist we have no way to do it in the way Leo wants. I would say that this latter can be discussed in the open (lime this list) but this all should be considered "input" to ARIN and the person who should be submitting the letter and who shoult be signing on it should be ARIN's President on behalf of ARIN itself. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Nov 10 07:10:45 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:10:45 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <20041109164804.GE40147@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20041108185554.GA88631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20041109164804.GE40147@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <8CD91980-3311-11D9-B6D4-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-11-09, at 17.48, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> If you feel strongly about commenting on the draft, then please >> send your comments directly to the IETF mailing list. If you talked to >> people at the ARIN meeting and want to pass on their concerns then >> please do so. But I think you are wasting your time with this idea >> of drafting a letter that ARIN in toto will send to the IETF. > > I understand your opinion, and disagree. However, the great thing > about the ARIN process is being consensus based, and I'm not sure > enough others have weighed in yet to really know how people are > leaning. Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a letter from ARIN will have more weight than you as an individual taking part in the IETF process and giving input directly to the IETF Working Groups? - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQZIFSqarNKXTPFCVEQL7DwCcCN1nJbtSIRbza/zBbSkXZDH5g2QAoOo4 QX39QA7Sd8RMuHuFxsH3c5wZ =petl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From plzak at arin.net Wed Nov 10 07:45:56 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:45:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <20041108185554.GA88631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20041110124556.A1F931FE89@mercury.arin.net> This thread was started by Leo Bicknell on Mon Nov 08 2004 - 13:55:54 EST. The original post stated in part: "ARIN on behalf of the ARIN membership and constituents believes that the proposal in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt will be harmful to the future of the IPv6 Internet. ARIN recommends that this draft NOT be adopted by the IETF." This draft is under consideration by the IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6). Mail list information is: General Discussion: ipv6 at ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 In Body: subscribe Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/index.html Looking at the archives for the working group there has been no recent discussion of this draft. In the past two days there have been over 28 posts to this thread. There were 35 posts to a similar earlier thread. This makes a total of over 63 messages between the 2 threads. This is a valuable discussion but to a large extent the efforts can be considered as a non input into the working group as the discussions have not on been their mail list. The IETF is composed of individuals not organizations. The likelihood is that a single letter from ARIN would be viewed as one contribution not a representative, collective contribution from a body of people. Thus the voices of the contributors to the discussion on this mail list would in effect be muted. To be effective each concerned person in the ARIN community needs to speak individually in the IETF forum. The IETF works best when people directly contribute to the discussion and consensus building process. I encourage you to move this discussion to the working group mail list and if you are at the IETF to attend the IPv6 Working Group at 9 AM, Thursday morning in the Georgetown room. The session is also multicast. Ray From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Nov 10 08:04:53 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:04:53 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2 In-Reply-To: <8CD91980-3311-11D9-B6D4-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> References: <20041108185554.GA88631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20041109164804.GE40147@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <8CD91980-3311-11D9-B6D4-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <20041110130453.GA93207@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 01:10:45PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a letter from ARIN will > have more weight than you as an individual taking part in the IETF > process and giving input directly to the IETF Working Groups? I don't. I expect a letter from ARIN will have the same weight as a letter from any other "person" (since corporations are people in many legal contexts). However, I think there is a history that the IETF tends to ignore someone who says "this won't harm me, but that guy over in the corner who won't speak up will be harmed, so don't do that." Since I really believe ARIN is (in part) an affected party here I think ARIN should speak up. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hannigan at verisign.com Sun Nov 14 16:55:37 2004 From: hannigan at verisign.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 Message-ID: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE6917C6@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:38 PM > To: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on > draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2 > > > You wrote:"I have yet to see a reason > to recomend to my employer to filter this block, and in fact see > several reasons to encourage the early, widespread use of this block > as it gets us and our customers out of paying fees. Saving money > is something my management understands well, and I suspect there > are many other ISP's who would cooperate in order to save money as > well." > > 1. When you look at paying 18K a year for a large block of > V4 space....it > seems like alot of money to some. > However, when you look at the total cost of running an internet > network...18K seems very miniscule. > Unless I'm missing some other major fee's here....would this really be > enough of a cost saver to push ISP's in the direction of > using V6 over V4? I'm not sure why operators would push anyone to V6. It's not their responsibility. The food chain for Internet services is bottom-up. [ SNIP ] Note, I didn't quite get the quoting. Sorry if I'm dropping these comments in the wrong place. > > From a business case point of view getting out from under the > oppressive thumb of the registries who want to milk us each year > for thousands of dollars just to publish a whois record is a very > attractive proposition. I read the ARIN financials that are public. I don't see an oppressive milk machine. There is a large amount of cash on hand, but the fees were reduced, probably for that reason. -M< From tme at multicasttech.com Mon Nov 15 08:51:37 2004 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:51:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] 2002-3 Microassignments Message-ID: Hello; For various reasons, PP 2002-3 has come up recently both on NANOG and in several of my private mail threads. Since it has been a year since its adoption, is there any way to find out how many have applied for micro-assignements ? What the result was ? (I.e., how many were approved / rejected / pending ?) I predicted that there would not be a land rush for micro-assignments, it would be good to find out 1 year into the process. To date, I know of one, and it was approved. Regards Marshall Eubanks From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Nov 15 09:50:03 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:50:03 -0600 Subject: [ppml] 2002-3 Microassignments Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A545@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Marshall, Thank you for bringing this up. I was our intention on the AC to followup on statistic related to micro-assignments. I accept responsibility for not doing so. I will inquire specifically within ARIN to get some stats generated. I too felt that micro assignments were more a bogey than a real threat to either the routing tables or the available v4 space. Let's see. Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:52 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] 2002-3 Microassignments > > > Hello; > > For various reasons, PP 2002-3 has come up recently both on > NANOG and in several of my private mail threads. Since it has > been a year since its adoption, is there any way to find out > how many have applied for micro-assignements ? What the > result was ? (I.e., how many were approved / rejected / pending ?) > > I predicted that there would not be a land rush for > micro-assignments, it would > be good to find out 1 year into the process. To date, I know > of one, and it was approved. > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Nov 15 11:17:20 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:17:20 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Managemen t of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A546@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Ray, Thank you for informing the community of these documents. I think it is easy to overlook your encouragement to communicate individual views to the ITU in the email. I think it is really important that a wide variety of stakeholders do so. I would be interested to know what form of contact you think would be most useful... i.e. email or snailmail...and to which element listed on the contacts link you reference would be most useful as a destination. Thanks. Bill Darte CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis ARIN AC > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-arin-announce at arin.net > [mailto:owner-arin-announce at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:51 AM > To: arin-announce at arin.net > Subject: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the > Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > The Number Resource Organization (NRO) has just published a > public response to an October 21, 2004 memorandum from the > Director of ITU Telecommunications Standardization Bureau > (ITU TSB) entitled "ITU and Internet Governance." > > The full ITU memorandum is available at: > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc The full text of the NRO response is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/nro17.html A summary of the response is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/nro18.html ARIN encourages members of the Internet community to read both documents and to make their views about this issue known to the ITU. The ITU's contact information is available at: http://www.itu.int/home/contact/index.html Regards, Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Mon Nov 15 11:13:00 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:13:00 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The full text of the NRO response is available at: > > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro17.html The response notes that IPv4 allocations were done differently in the past due to the tchnology available at that time and acknowledges that the previous rules of allocation were unfair when viewed from a viewpoint of balancing resources among nations. However, the response doesn't mention that the national allocation system for telephone numbers is a direct result of the telecommunications technology of the time and the way that early telecom networks were structured. I think that it is important to note that E.164 country codes, early IPv4 allocation rules and current IPv6 allocation rules are all driven by technology and not by intergovernmental politics. It is purely a coincidence that phone numbers are allocated in national blocks. If the phone number allocation system was reinvented today, this probably would not be the case because the technology of voice telecommunications today is so different. You can catch a glimpse of this at http://www.freeworlddialup.com/advanced/peering_numbers Having said that I would like to note that the current IP (v 4 and 6) allocation system does support the notion of geographical allocations. We call it the RIR system. Perhaps someone can find real technical justification for a more finely-grained system than just the 5 major continents but I suspect that such a system would end up ignoring national boundaries by both aggregation and splitting. For instance Luxembourg, Amsterdam and Brussels are in three countries but it is hard to see any technical justification for a telecom system that doesn't treat them as the same locality. On the other hand Moscow and Vladivostok are in one country but are clearly not in the same locality. If ITU really wants to see some geographically based addressing for IPv6, then it needs to do a lot of technical committee work before bringing it forward at the policy level. --Michael Dillon From leslien at arin.net Mon Nov 15 11:28:16 2004 From: leslien at arin.net (Leslie Nobile) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:28:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <20041115162819.E5C6D1FE8D@mercury.arin.net> A recent question has come up on this list regarding the number of organizations that have qualified for IPv4 addresses under policy 2002-3 "Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks. Since its implementation in May 2004, ARIN has been tracking the number of allocations and assignments (/21s and /22s) made under this policy very closely. Here are the statistics as of Oct. 31, 2004: # of Organizations qualified: 80 # of Allocations to ISPs 61 # of Assignments to End Users: 27 Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) leslie at arin.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tme at multicasttech.com Mon Nov 15 12:00:44 2004 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:00:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <20041115162819.E5C6D1FE8D@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:28:16 -0500 "Leslie Nobile" wrote: > A recent question has come up on this list regarding the number of > organizations that have qualified for IPv4 addresses under policy 2002-3 > "Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks. > > > > Since its implementation in May 2004, ARIN has been tracking the number of > allocations and assignments (/21s and /22s) made under this policy very > closely. Here are the statistics as of Oct. 31, 2004: > > > > # of Organizations qualified: 80 > > # of Allocations to ISPs 61 > > # of Assignments to End Users: 27 > > Dear Leslie; Thank you for your quick response to my inquiry. A few more questions : I notice that 61 + 27 = 88 > 80. Are some allocations / assignments doubled ? Shouldn't these numbers add up ? Also, how many total applications were received (i.e., was anyone turned down or is still pending) ? And, in the last year, how many total allocations / assignments did ARIN make ? I.e., what percentage of the total is microassignments ? It sounds like it is pretty small, given that 20,000 new address blocks appeared in BGP. Regards Marshall Eubanks > > Regards, > > > > Leslie Nobile > > Director, Registration Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > leslie at arin.net > > > > > From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 15 12:39:24 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:39:24 -0800 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <20041115162819.E5C6D1FE8D@mercury.arin.net> References: <20041115162819.E5C6D1FE8D@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: <2147483647.1100511564@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> Thanks, Leslie. Bill, I'd say this does not constitute a land rush, and, it is probably, at this point, worth revisiting the boundary as was consensus when this was adopted. Do you think we should look at going to /23 or /24 as the next step in this process? Owen --On Monday, November 15, 2004 11:28 AM -0500 Leslie Nobile wrote: > > > A recent question has come up on this list regarding the number of > organizations that have qualified for IPv4 addresses under policy 2002-3 > "Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks. > > > > Since its implementation in May 2004, ARIN has been tracking the number > of allocations and assignments (/21s and /22s) made under this policy > very closely. Here are the statistics as of Oct. 31, 2004: > > > ># of Organizations qualified: 80 > ># of Allocations to ISPs 61 > ># of Assignments to End Users: 27 > > > > Regards, > > > > Leslie Nobile > > Director, Registration Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > leslie at arin.net > > > > -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 15 12:43:12 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:43:12 -0800 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1100511792@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> >> # of Organizations qualified: 80 >> >> # of Allocations to ISPs 61 >> >> # of Assignments to End Users: 27 >> >> > > Dear Leslie; > > Thank you for your quick response to my inquiry. A few more questions : > > I notice that 61 + 27 = 88 > 80. Are some allocations / assignments > doubled ? Shouldn't these numbers add up ? > Probably not... Probably some organizations have received more than one allocation/assignment. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Nov 15 16:10:17 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:10:17 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A54D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> > > Bill, > I'd say this does not constitute a land rush, and, it > is probably, at this point, worth revisiting the boundary as > was consensus when this was adopted. Do you think we should > look at going to /23 or /24 as the next step in this process? First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it has only been 6 months...has 'word' gotten out that the boundary was changed?...I don't know. It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit this boundary after impact assessment. So...to the community this email reaches... 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are others needed (suggest)? 3. Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change policy proposal for the Spring meeting? 4. In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is the boundary change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who would be the target for such policy change (e.g. only multi-homed nets)? Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing relevant are appreciated. Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 > > Owen > > > --On Monday, November 15, 2004 11:28 AM -0500 Leslie Nobile > wrote: > > > > > > > A recent question has come up on this list regarding the number of > > organizations that have qualified for IPv4 addresses under policy > > 2002-3 "Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks. > > > > > > > > Since its implementation in May 2004, ARIN has been tracking the > > number of allocations and assignments (/21s and /22s) made > under this > > policy very closely. Here are the statistics as of Oct. 31, 2004: > > > > > > > ># of Organizations qualified: 80 > > > ># of Allocations to ISPs 61 > > > ># of Assignments to End Users: 27 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Leslie Nobile > > > > Director, Registration Services > > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > leslie at arin.net > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Nov 15 16:12:33 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:12:33 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A54E@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> > >> # of Organizations qualified: 80 > >> > >> # of Allocations to ISPs 61 > >> > >> # of Assignments to End Users: 27 > >> > >> > > > > Dear Leslie; > > > > Thank you for your quick response to my inquiry. A few more > questions > > : > > > > I notice that 61 + 27 = 88 > 80. Are some allocations / assignments > > doubled ? Shouldn't these numbers add up ? > > > Probably not... Probably some organizations have received > more than one allocation/assignment. > > Owen I posed the same questions to Leslie offline.... Indeed, there were multiple allocations which cause the inconsistency AND, no record of total requests are kept...though I have assurance that some denials for various reasons have occurred. Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 From jim at tgasolutions.com Mon Nov 15 16:53:33 2004 From: jim at tgasolutions.com (Jim McBurnett) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:53:33 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <5432D045DAFD8040BCE549749263BD0023ABA3@testsystem2.tga.local> > > First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it > has only been 6 months...has 'word' gotten out that the > boundary was changed?...I don't know. In my part of the world--- 2 service providers and 3 of my customers did not know.. (all that we asked) One customer currently has 3 Class C's from 2 providers...(yeah, this is a bad one) All 3 of those enterprise customers are now considering the application. > It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit > this boundary after impact assessment. > > So...to the community this email reaches... > > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? Personnally, I think it should wait 1 calender year..... 6 months is barely enough time to consider. > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are > others needed (suggest)? I think we should wait, maybe someone on the AC should write And article to Network World or something, and start the land rush. > 3. Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change > policy proposal for the Spring meeting? YES, put it on the calender and then see what the membership and PPML says... > 4. In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is > the boundary change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who > would be the target for such policy change (e.g. only > multi-homed nets)? I think it should be changed to read: Multi-homed networks will be assigned /22, /23 or /24 allocations based on Utilization and needs in-line with other allocations and assignments covered in Other policies... Thanks, Jim > Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing > relevant are appreciated. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > 314 935-7575 From davidu at everydns.net Mon Nov 15 17:08:21 2004 From: davidu at everydns.net (David A.Ulevitch) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:08:21 -0800 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <20041115162819.E5C6D1FE8D@mercury.arin.net> References: <20041115162819.E5C6D1FE8D@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2004, at 8:28 AM, Leslie Nobile wrote: > > # of Organizations qualified:? ?80 > > # of Allocations to ISPs????? ?61? > > # of Assignments to End Users: ?27 ? > # of Organizations/applications denied/returned: ______ ??? Do you keep track of that number? Thanks, David A. Ulevitch From mloevner at gnilink.net Mon Nov 15 17:16:26 2004 From: mloevner at gnilink.net (Loevner, Michael) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:16:26 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <9AAFBF2FFCE04B49913787C5BD1FB356281D80@resmail3> Hello, The meeting coming up in April will still leave less than a year since the implementation of this policy (May 17th, 2003). I agree with Jim that in the world of ARIN policy, news spreads to the little guys very slowly. IMO, we should wait until a year has passed until we evaluate this policy further and can truly understand the impact. The April meeting is too early to consider a further reduction of the minimum allocation size for multi-homed organizations unless something happens between now and then that really spreads the word to smaller network operators. I do agree that we should be presented with statistics on these allocations in April. I think the statistics should be broken down on a monthly basis so we can see any trends in the number of allocations throughout the time period that the policy has been in effect. If there does end up being a change in the policy, I think we should go one bit at a time and continue to gauge the effect of the reduction. Also, these allocations should still be restricted to multi-homed organizations. Thanks, Mike Loevner IP Administrator Verizon Internet Services -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim McBurnett Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:54 PM To: Bill Darte; Owen DeLong; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics > > First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it > has only been 6 months...has 'word' gotten out that the > boundary was changed?...I don't know. In my part of the world--- 2 service providers and 3 of my customers did not know.. (all that we asked) One customer currently has 3 Class C's from 2 providers...(yeah, this is a bad one) All 3 of those enterprise customers are now considering the application. > It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit > this boundary after impact assessment. > > So...to the community this email reaches... > > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? Personnally, I think it should wait 1 calender year..... 6 months is barely enough time to consider. > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are > others needed (suggest)? I think we should wait, maybe someone on the AC should write And article to Network World or something, and start the land rush. > 3. Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change > policy proposal for the Spring meeting? YES, put it on the calender and then see what the membership and PPML says... > 4. In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is > the boundary change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who > would be the target for such policy change (e.g. only > multi-homed nets)? I think it should be changed to read: Multi-homed networks will be assigned /22, /23 or /24 allocations based on Utilization and needs in-line with other allocations and assignments covered in Other policies... Thanks, Jim > Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing > relevant are appreciated. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > 314 935-7575 From tme at multicasttech.com Mon Nov 15 18:49:18 2004 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:49:18 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <5432D045DAFD8040BCE549749263BD0023ABA3@testsystem2.tga.local> Message-ID: Hello; I basically agree with Jim here - a year wait seems appropriate. Since the clock started in May, that means late Spring, 2005. On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:53:33 -0500 "Jim McBurnett" wrote: > > > > > First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it > > has only been 6 months...has 'word' gotten out that the > > boundary was changed?...I don't know. > > In my part of the world--- 2 service providers and 3 of my customers > did not know.. (all that we asked) One customer currently has > 3 Class C's from 2 providers...(yeah, this is a bad one) > All 3 of those enterprise customers are now considering the > application. > > > It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit > > this boundary after impact assessment. > > > > So...to the community this email reaches... > > > > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? > > Personnally, I think it should wait 1 calender year..... > 6 months is barely enough time to consider. > > > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are > > others needed (suggest)? > > I think we should wait, maybe someone on the AC should write > And article to Network World or something, and start the land rush. > > > 3. Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change > > policy proposal for the Spring meeting? > > YES, put it on the calender and then see what the membership and PPML > says... > Agree > > 4. In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is > > the boundary change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who > > would be the target for such policy change (e.g. only > > multi-homed nets)? > > I think it should be changed to read: > Multi-homed networks will be assigned /22, /23 or /24 allocations based > on > Utilization and needs in-line with other allocations and assignments > covered in > Other policies... > Also agree. > Thanks, > Jim > > > > Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing > > relevant are appreciated. > > > > Bill Darte > > ARIN Advisory Council > > 314 935-7575 > Regards Marshall Eubanks From mloftis at wgops.com Mon Nov 15 19:02:32 2004 From: mloftis at wgops.com (Michael Loftis) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:02:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E4A82F868B9459AB4AD95FA@d216-220-25-60.dynip.modwest.com> I agree that there has not yet been sufficient time, however, I also think that maybe ARIN should be the source of any statistics, rather than informal polls. It would be nice to get information pushed from ARIN to the decision makers and input system (IE us). For this case # of allocations under the 2002-3 (or specific policy section) over time would be very helpful. Just my $0.02 From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Nov 15 19:09:20 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:09:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A54D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A54D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20041116000920.GA2631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 03:10:17PM -0600, Bill Darte wrote: > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? No. From recent discussions sprung up from Nanog news of this change hasn't made it very far at all. Also, given once someone knows they can do this they may have to put various ducks in a row to make it happen I think it is too soon to tell. > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are others needed > (suggest)? I would like to see month-by-month numbers, so we can attempt to tell if the rate of requests is still going up, going down, or remaining steady. This is a better indicator, IMHO. If we have month by month numbers for a year showing a trend that is not sharply increasing towards the end we are probably safe, otherwise, who knows? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tme at multicasttech.com Mon Nov 15 19:28:33 2004 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:28:33 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <20041116000920.GA2631@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:09:20 -0500 Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 03:10:17PM -0600, Bill Darte wrote: > > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? > > No. From recent discussions sprung up from Nanog news of this > change hasn't made it very far at all. Also, given once someone > knows they can do this they may have to put various ducks in a row > to make it happen I think it is too soon to tell. > > > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are others needed > > (suggest)? > > I would like to see month-by-month numbers, so we can attempt to > tell if the rate of requests is still going up, going down, or > remaining steady. This is a better indicator, IMHO. > I agree with Leo on this; some indication of how many are rejected or pending would be useful too. Regards Marshall > If we have month by month numbers for a year showing a trend that is not > sharply increasing towards the end we are probably safe, otherwise, who > knows? > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org From jim at tgasolutions.com Mon Nov 15 20:42:37 2004 From: jim at tgasolutions.com (Jim McBurnett) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:42:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <5432D045DAFD8040BCE549749263BD0023ABAD@testsystem2.tga.local> > From: Leo Bicknell > > No. From recent discussions sprung up from Nanog news of > this change hasn't made it very far at all. Also, given once > someone knows they can do this they may have to put various > ducks in a row to make it happen I think it is too soon to tell. Thought-- with the 7 new routers that Cisco just put out, all of which Could handle a FULL BGP route table, and the "low" cost of these, many Could be prepping budgets to do this and we just don't know.. I have been advising ALL my customers that have multi-homing requirements to Get their own space. And the planning timeline for them is not short.. I know many of you have renumbered, so you know what those folks are up against, Especially with the financial markets the way they are now......... > > I would like to see month-by-month numbers, so we can attempt > to tell if the rate of requests is still going up, going > down, or remaining steady. This is a better indicator, IMHO. > > If we have month by month numbers for a year showing a trend > that is not sharply increasing towards the end we are > probably safe, otherwise, who knows? > I think not only would this help but also the denied count. And a count of denied resubmittals. If I were to get denied, I would "realign the stars" and resubmit... I know that happened, I have heard of that before...... I like statistics, but we are just starting the count........ J > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG > List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > From plzak at arin.net Tue Nov 16 09:34:30 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:34:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A546@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20041116143430.E03E51FE89@mercury.arin.net> Bill, I think one of the most effective ways for people to voice their concerns is to contact the ITU sector members within the ARIN region, referencing the ITU memorandum and the NRO response. There are approximately 20 ARIN member organizations in a variety of countries listed as sector members and there are a number of non-ARIN member related equipment and service organizations. These members can be found by using the URL below. Open the Member States list and then click on the appropriate country to review the individual memberships. For many organizations a personal contact and e-mail are provided. A concerned person who is also an employee of one of these ITU member organizations could contact the executive of their respective organization who is involved with their ITU membership regarding this matter. Their ITU member representative may not be aware of this recent activity. The ITU member list is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/index.html The ITU memorandum is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc The full text of the NRO response is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/nro17.html In addition, everyone should please consider the ARIN public policy mailing list (ppml at arin.net) as a venue for discussion about this matter. All comments are welcomed and encouraged. Mailing list subscription information is available at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html ARIN encourages members of the Internet community to make their views about this issue known. The bottom-up, consensus based model on which the success of the Internet has been founded may be at risk of being replaced by a top-down system of "Internet Governance." Your visible and explicit support of the bottom-up, consensus based model is needed. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:17 AM > To: Ray Plzak (plzak at arin.net); ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the > Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > Ray, > > Thank you for informing the community of these documents. > > I think it is easy to overlook your encouragement to communicate > individual > views to the ITU in the email. I think it is really important that a wide > variety of stakeholders do so. > > I would be interested to know what form of contact you think would be most > useful... i.e. email or snailmail...and to which element listed on the > contacts link you reference would be most useful as a destination. > > Thanks. > > Bill Darte > CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis > ARIN AC > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-arin-announce at arin.net > > [mailto:owner-arin-announce at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services > > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:51 AM > > To: arin-announce at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the > > Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > > > > The Number Resource Organization (NRO) has just published a > > public response to an October 21, 2004 memorandum from the > > Director of ITU Telecommunications Standardization Bureau > > (ITU TSB) entitled "ITU and Internet Governance." > > > > The full ITU memorandum is available at: > > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.doc > > The full text of the NRO response is available at: > > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro17.html > > A summary of the response is available at: > > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro18.html > > ARIN encourages members of the Internet community to read both documents > and > to make their views about this issue known to the ITU. The ITU's contact > information is available at: > > http://www.itu.int/home/contact/index.html > > Regards, > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From rdasilva at va.rr.com Tue Nov 16 10:46:50 2004 From: rdasilva at va.rr.com (da Silva, Ron) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:46:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B91B@RRMAILER.rr.com> Some general observations: This document makes an admirable argument for asserting control over internet governance by the UN by way of the ITU. To summarize Mr. Zhao, "In my opinion, it is very important to recognize that the success of any ICT technology, and of the Internet in particular, depends on the collaboration of all parties, and in particular of governments..." The solution requires "..intergovernmental...policies...transposed...into national laws and [applied] to private companies..." By reading those two paragraphs, you can save yourself the trouble of reading the entire document (which is interesting nonetheless). Specifically regarding RIR's though it states in Section 4.2.b, "...despite [RIR's] best efforts, and even though a very large portion of the IPv4 space has not been assigned, some believe that there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses and voice concerns regarding the principles and managements of the current system. Some developing countries have raised issues regarding IP address allocation..." I would argue that the endorsement by the existing RIR's of the emerging AfriNIC is a clear counter example. Should there be some additional outreach by the RIR's to governments within their regions to further encourage participation in the public policy process by companies or agencies from developing countries? "... my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address in IPv6..." So we should give each ITU/UN recognized government a /1 be done with it? How many ITU/UN recognized governments are there? If there are more than 256, change that to a /2? (I think there are only 189 member states, so the /1 would work just fine...with some space reserved for a limited number of new states being recognized.) -ron PS: Anyone have any pointers to details of the ITU's Next Generation Network (NGN) referenced in this document? From rdasilva at va.rr.com Tue Nov 16 10:51:19 2004 From: rdasilva at va.rr.com (da Silva, Ron) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:51:19 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D763020FB301@RRMAILER.rr.com> > So we should give each ITU/UN recognized government a /1 be done with > it? How many ITU/UN recognized governments are there? If there are > more than 256, change that to a /2? (I think there are only 189 member > states, so the /1 would work just fine...with some space reserved for a > limited number of new states being recognized.) Perchance the subtlety has been lost in the reading or translation of the above, for clarity my endorsement here is only in sarcastic jest. -ron From stacy at hilander.com Tue Nov 16 11:02:52 2004 From: stacy at hilander.com (stacy at hilander.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:02:52 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A54D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A54D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <1100620972.419a24ac62008@www.hilander.com> Hi All, I believe there has not been enough time to assess impact and we need to wait at least until April for an accurate reading. /S Quoting Bill Darte : > > > > > Bill, > > I'd say this does not constitute a land rush, and, it > > is probably, at this point, worth revisiting the boundary as > > was consensus when this was adopted. Do you think we should > > look at going to /23 or /24 as the next step in this process? > > First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it has only been 6 > months...has 'word' gotten out that the boundary was changed?...I don't > know. > > It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit this boundary > after impact assessment. > > So...to the community this email reaches... > > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are others needed > (suggest)? > 3. Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change policy proposal > for the Spring meeting? > 4. In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is the boundary > change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who would be the target for such > policy change (e.g. only multi-homed nets)? > > Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing relevant are > appreciated. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > 314 935-7575 > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > --On Monday, November 15, 2004 11:28 AM -0500 Leslie Nobile > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > A recent question has come up on this list regarding the number of > > > organizations that have qualified for IPv4 addresses under policy > > > 2002-3 "Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since its implementation in May 2004, ARIN has been tracking the > > > number of allocations and assignments (/21s and /22s) made > > under this > > > policy very closely. Here are the statistics as of Oct. 31, 2004: > > > > > > > > > > > ># of Organizations qualified: 80 > > > > > ># of Allocations to ISPs 61 > > > > > ># of Assignments to End Users: 27 > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Leslie Nobile > > > > > > Director, Registration Services > > > > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > leslie at arin.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. > > > > !DSPAM:41991a9e166952752259658! > > > From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 16 11:49:22 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:49:22 -0800 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D2627A11@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> I agree with all of Mikes Comments below. Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Loevner, Michael [mailto:mloevner at gnilink.net] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:16 PM To: Jim McBurnett; Bill Darte; Owen DeLong; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics Hello, The meeting coming up in April will still leave less than a year since the implementation of this policy (May 17th, 2003). I agree with Jim that in the world of ARIN policy, news spreads to the little guys very slowly. IMO, we should wait until a year has passed until we evaluate this policy further and can truly understand the impact. The April meeting is too early to consider a further reduction of the minimum allocation size for multi-homed organizations unless something happens between now and then that really spreads the word to smaller network operators. I do agree that we should be presented with statistics on these allocations in April. I think the statistics should be broken down on a monthly basis so we can see any trends in the number of allocations throughout the time period that the policy has been in effect. If there does end up being a change in the policy, I think we should go one bit at a time and continue to gauge the effect of the reduction. Also, these allocations should still be restricted to multi-homed organizations. Thanks, Mike Loevner IP Administrator Verizon Internet Services -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim McBurnett Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:54 PM To: Bill Darte; Owen DeLong; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics > > First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it > has only been 6 months...has 'word' gotten out that the > boundary was changed?...I don't know. In my part of the world--- 2 service providers and 3 of my customers did not know.. (all that we asked) One customer currently has 3 Class C's from 2 providers...(yeah, this is a bad one) All 3 of those enterprise customers are now considering the application. > It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit > this boundary after impact assessment. > > So...to the community this email reaches... > > 1. Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact? Personnally, I think it should wait 1 calender year..... 6 months is barely enough time to consider. > 2. Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are > others needed (suggest)? I think we should wait, maybe someone on the AC should write And article to Network World or something, and start the land rush. > 3. Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change > policy proposal for the Spring meeting? YES, put it on the calender and then see what the membership and PPML says... > 4. In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is > the boundary change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who > would be the target for such policy change (e.g. only > multi-homed nets)? I think it should be changed to read: Multi-homed networks will be assigned /22, /23 or /24 allocations based on Utilization and needs in-line with other allocations and assignments covered in Other policies... Thanks, Jim > Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing > relevant are appreciated. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > 314 935-7575 From randy at psg.com Tue Nov 16 12:42:25 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:42:25 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B91B@RRMAILER.rr.com> Message-ID: <16794.15361.237759.197603@ran.psg.com> i would suggest, from reading between ray's lines, that us all saying how cool the current system is on this list is not the most effective path. > I think one of the most effective ways for people to voice their concerns > is to contact the ITU sector members within the ARIN region, referencing > the ITU memorandum and the NRO response. i suspect we should take the hint. so, to try the modern way, can someone tell us the list and contact info of the 20 or so itu sector members in the arin region? randy From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Tue Nov 16 12:47:38 2004 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:47:38 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <16794.15361.237759.197603@ran.psg.com> References: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B91B@RRMAILER.rr.com> <16794.15361.237759.197603@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20041116184713.055b7160@localhost> At 16/11/2004 18:42, Randy Bush wrote: >so, to try the modern way, can someone tell us the list and contact info >of the 20 or so itu sector members in the arin region? It's a few more, they are on http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC. Axel From plzak at arin.net Tue Nov 16 13:19:38 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:19:38 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20041116184713.055b7160@localhost> Message-ID: <20041116181945.098E41FE89@mercury.arin.net> There are 20 ARIN members who are also ITU Sector members. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Axel > Pawlik > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:48 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on > the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > At 16/11/2004 18:42, Randy Bush wrote: > > >so, to try the modern way, can someone tell us the list and contact info > >of the 20 or so itu sector members in the arin region? > > It's a few more, they are on > http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC. > > Axel From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Nov 16 13:54:41 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:54:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] ITU Sector and ARIN Member Contacts Message-ID: Below are the e-mail addresses provided on the ITU list of sector members for those representatives from current ARIN member organizations. Please review the entire list for all countries within the ARIN region. There are other organizations on that list for whom you may have contacts and wish to include in your correspondence. http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC michael.a.nawrocki at verizon.com bcute at verisign.com gary.tennyson at bellsouth.com stephen.blust at cingular.com martin.carroll at mci.com Jeffrey.ganek at neustar.biz chris.wallace at nokia.com Michael.Fargano at qwest.com linda_black at labs.sbc.com mark.jones at mail.sprint.com redouane.zidane at bell.ca vino.vinodrai at bell.ca christian.michaud at teleglobe.ca mortimer.hope at vodacom.co.za chief.executive at cwanu.cwplc.com Cable & Wireless, Antigua and Barbuda Regards, Member Services Department American Registry for Internet Numbers =================================================================== E-mail memsvcs at arin.net FTP ftp.arin.net WHOIS whois.arin.net Website http://www.arin.net =================================================================== From sob at harvard.edu Tue Nov 16 14:15:42 2004 From: sob at harvard.edu (scott bradner) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:15:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B91B@RRMAILER.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041116191542.73E5313B6F5@newdev.harvard.edu> > PS: Anyone have any pointers to details of the ITU's Next Generation > Network (NGN) referenced in this document? it's a bit fuzzy but the high order bits are thatthe NGN is a carrier run IP network with e-2-e QoS http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/ngn/index.html Scott From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 16 14:22:05 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:22:05 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Re: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B91B@RRMAILER.rr.com> References: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B91B@RRMAILER.rr.com> Message-ID: <2147483647.1100604125@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> A small correction: In any address space, there are only 2 /1s. I think you meant a /8. I would propose that allocating a v6 /24 to each country might not be a bad idea. A /8 or /9 would not leave much room for non-country allocations. Owen --On Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:46 AM -0500 "da Silva, Ron" wrote: > Some general observations: > > This document makes an admirable argument for asserting control over > internet governance by the UN by way of the ITU. To summarize Mr. Zhao, > > "In my opinion, it is very important to recognize that the success of > any ICT technology, and of the Internet in particular, depends on the > collaboration of all parties, and in particular of governments..." > > The solution requires > "..intergovernmental...policies...transposed...into national laws and > [applied] to private companies..." > > By reading those two paragraphs, you can save yourself the trouble of > reading the entire document (which is interesting nonetheless). > Specifically regarding RIR's though it states in Section 4.2.b, > > "...despite [RIR's] best efforts, and even though a very large portion > of the IPv4 space has not been assigned, some believe that there is a > shortage of IPv4 addresses and voice concerns regarding the principles > and managements of the current system. Some developing countries have > raised issues regarding IP address allocation..." > > I would argue that the endorsement by the existing RIR's of the emerging > AfriNIC is a clear counter example. Should there be some additional > outreach by the RIR's to governments within their regions to further > encourage participation in the public policy process by companies or > agencies from developing countries? > > "... my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by > authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at no > cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address in > IPv6..." > > So we should give each ITU/UN recognized government a /1 be done with > it? How many ITU/UN recognized governments are there? If there are > more than 256, change that to a /2? (I think there are only 189 member > states, so the /1 would work just fine...with some space reserved for a > limited number of new states being recognized.) > > -ron > > PS: Anyone have any pointers to details of the ITU's Next Generation > Network (NGN) referenced in this document? -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 16 15:22:57 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:22:57 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Internet Governance Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A554@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Hello, I am writing as a member of ARIN representing The Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) at Washington University in St. Louis. I am also on the Advisory Council to the ARIN Board of Trustees, in which capacity I have served since ARIN's inception in late 1997. My first assignment to this advisory role was as a selected volunteer by the first Board of ARIN. I have been elected to 2 subsequent 3-year terms by the members and stakeholders of ARIN. My role as advisor to the Board is one of policy making. I serve as liaison to the community of stakeholders for Internet number resources (specifically IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers). That I should be placed in this position of trust by the ARIN community is gratifying. It also demonstrates the ability of the ARIN community to express its will through open and transparent elections and to elect representatives from among a diverse slate of candidates. The ARIN Advisory Council is made up of 15 members of very diverse background and experience. This process is the essence of bottom-up policy making in which those who must comply with policies and know most about the impact of policy, advocate directly and indirectly in its making. The process is not without flaw, but has been refined over the years in which all four RIRs have operated. Each at once the same in function, but different as they reflect the individual regional reality in economics and operations of massive and important communication infrastructure. No stakeholder is precluded from participation, governments alike. Indeed, each stakeholder is encouraged to participate and has ample opportunity through online and mulitiple face-to-face fora that travel to various localities within the region. In addition, RIRs are involved in educational outreach that is specific to the needs of its region. This helps ensure that stakeholders are informed in all matters related to the resources for which it is steward. This important segment of Internet governance and management is most definitely NOT broken. It operates smoothly and efficiently and corresponds to the highest ideals of open and fair administration of these fundamental Internet resources. I urge you in your capacity as Sector Member of the ITU to encourage collaboration within the existing RIR structure(s) to achieve objectives that you feel are important for international telecommunications. Assemble with the many other global stakeholders and become a contributing part of this community. With deepest respect, Bill Darte Senior Technical Associate CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis And ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 From leslien at arin.net Tue Nov 16 17:16:20 2004 From: leslien at arin.net (Leslie Nobile) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:16:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <5432D045DAFD8040BCE549749263BD0023ABAD@testsystem2.tga.local> Message-ID: <20041116221619.EBCF51FE89@mercury.arin.net> As part of its impact analysis, ARIN will provide statistics related to registration activity associated with policy 2002-3 30 days prior to ARIN's public policy meeting in April 2005. Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) leslie at arin.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim McBurnett Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:43 PM To: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics > From: Leo Bicknell > > No. From recent discussions sprung up from Nanog news of > this change hasn't made it very far at all. Also, given once > someone knows they can do this they may have to put various > ducks in a row to make it happen I think it is too soon to tell. Thought-- with the 7 new routers that Cisco just put out, all of which Could handle a FULL BGP route table, and the "low" cost of these, many Could be prepping budgets to do this and we just don't know.. I have been advising ALL my customers that have multi-homing requirements to Get their own space. And the planning timeline for them is not short.. I know many of you have renumbered, so you know what those folks are up against, Especially with the financial markets the way they are now......... > > I would like to see month-by-month numbers, so we can attempt > to tell if the rate of requests is still going up, going > down, or remaining steady. This is a better indicator, IMHO. > > If we have month by month numbers for a year showing a trend > that is not sharply increasing towards the end we are > probably safe, otherwise, who knows? > I think not only would this help but also the denied count. And a count of denied resubmittals. If I were to get denied, I would "realign the stars" and resubmit... I know that happened, I have heard of that before...... I like statistics, but we are just starting the count........ J > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG > List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > From gregm at datapro.co.za Tue Nov 16 17:25:32 2004 From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:25:32 +0200 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A546@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <00ce01c4cc2b$6a6524d0$0a1929c4@groglet> A number of African governments have the feeling that it is of strategic importance for their countries to become involved in global technology governance as a means of influencing policy such that it encourages development of resources where historically these are limited and discourages policy that facilitates advancement merely for existing users/developers of those technologies. The fundamental problem with the policy making structures of organisations such as ARIN and the NRO, is that policy is effectively set by members, ie. organisations or individuals who are making use of IP addresses right now. To the best of my knowlege, there is little or no representation in ARIN's or the NRO's policy making by individuals/organisations/governments/whatever whose interest it is to consider those who do not currently use IP addresses but who may begin to do so in the future. The huge debate and lead time for the acceptance of ARIN policy 2002-3 clearly demonstrated this issue. The people who most stood to benefit from it were NOT ARIN members. Yet the people who influenced the repeated deferral of it and who finally voted to adopt it were mostly existing ARIN members who were acting out of good faith rather then their own interests. Even still, the ARIN policy making process is disproportionately represented by Internet Service Providers who stood to gain significantly from a slight barrier to IP address portability whereas if their customers were represented, there would be a much greater push for a lesser barrier (and possibly assignments even as small as /24). The ISP approach to 2002-3 was typically along the lines of "what is the effect on the routing table and can my current technology support it?" The views of corporates and small businesses were not assessed, but my guess is that they would probably have been along the lines of "Routing table? Aggregation? Huh? Our ability to change ISPs effortlessly is paramount. The technical experts can work out ways of improving router technology to cope and ISPs can carry the cost as we're paying them for service." Yes, it would have been possible for many non-ISP businesses to become ARIN members and influence this policy by sheer numbers. But how many are even aware of ARIN or know that they can become a member? Mostly they rely on their ISP to handle their Internet-related needs. And so their interests went largely unconsidered in the 2002-3 discussions. What African governments are saying is that because many Africans are technologically behind, it is important that they - as guardians of their citizens (many of whom do not yet have the understanding or knowlege to influence policy on technology) - to do it on their behalf and provide that representativity. In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes many Africans make with technology (particuarly the Internet), is to confuse policy making with policy implementation. Looking at the ITU recommendation, one of the biggest faults I can find in it is the notion that each African country needs to receive IPv6 address space in order to set policy relating to IPv6. In fact, this would be a costly and inefficient exercise and still fail to address how African goverments can influence global IPv6 policies. AfriNIC is going to face a massive challenge in the future. It has been modelling itself on existing RIR's and in doing so has attracted the support of the Internet community. It has also attracted the support of various African governments (in particular .ZA which is a big sponsor). However, in order to sustain itself in the future, it will need the continued support of African governments and they will put pressure on it to set policy that looks after the interests both of current IP address holders and persons who may in the future require IP addresses (but who have historically not been exposed to the Internet). Anyone who doubts this need just look at the example of Namespace ZA, the perfect case of an Internet community supported organisation that was forced into becoming redundant through legislation because the ZA government decided that it was too representative of the current Internet community and not representative enough of the FUTURE Internet community (ie.the general public). It is no co-incidence that the ZA government are such a big founding sponsor of AfriNIC. I have no doubt that their enthusiasm for an African organisation to set policy for the African region is because they feel it will be more in touch with the needs of the technology have-nots and will have a greater focus on education and outreach than an organisation like ARIN whose membership is mostly a lot more technically knowlegeable and therefore requires a greater focus on things like request turnaround time than on education. The key here is to persuade the ITU (and much of the rest of Africa), that initiatives like AfriNIC are already in existance to address the sort of concerns that they have and that they should use AfriNIC as a channel of contributing to IPv6 policy rather than trying to create an alternative that breaks a working global model. I have no doubt that AfriNIC will be under significantly more pressure from African governments than ARIN is from the US government or RIPE from the EU, however, I do believe that it is up to the challenge and that familiarity will assist it significantly. I also believe that the AfriNIC policy formation model will need to change significantly in the future if it is to address the concerns of representivity that are much more difficult in Africa (because of the digital chasm, never mind digital divide). I urge anyone providing input to the ITU on their proposals to point out the existance and relevence of AfriNIC and how an alternative country-specific allocation approach will undermine AfriNIC, divide Africa, and in doing soo weaken Africa's ability to stand united and in doing so have greater influence on global IP addressing issues. --Gregory Massel From william at elan.net Tue Nov 16 19:53:14 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:53:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics In-Reply-To: <20041116221619.EBCF51FE89@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: Also please have that compared to number of new ARIN members (plus end-user assignments to organizations that did not previously had any space with ARIN directly) for the same period. In the future it might also be interesting to have data how long on average it took from when company got its own ASN to when they asked for micro-assignment. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Leslie Nobile wrote: > As part of its impact analysis, ARIN will provide statistics related to > registration activity associated with policy 2002-3 30 days prior to ARIN's > public policy meeting in April 2005. > > Regards, > > Leslie Nobile > Director, Registration Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > leslie at arin.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim > McBurnett > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:43 PM > To: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics > > > > From: Leo Bicknell > > > > No. From recent discussions sprung up from Nanog news of > > this change hasn't made it very far at all. Also, given once > > someone knows they can do this they may have to put various > > ducks in a row to make it happen I think it is too soon to tell. > Thought-- with the 7 new routers that Cisco just put out, all of which > Could handle a FULL BGP route table, and the "low" cost of these, many > Could be prepping budgets to do this and we just don't know.. > > I have been advising ALL my customers that have multi-homing > requirements to > Get their own space. And the planning timeline for them is not short.. > I know many of you have renumbered, so you know what those folks are up > against, > Especially with the financial markets the way they are now......... > > > > > I would like to see month-by-month numbers, so we can attempt > > to tell if the rate of requests is still going up, going > > down, or remaining steady. This is a better indicator, IMHO. > > > > If we have month by month numbers for a year showing a trend > > that is not sharply increasing towards the end we are > > probably safe, otherwise, who knows? > > > > I think not only would this help but also the denied count. > And a count of denied resubmittals. > If I were to get denied, I would "realign the stars" and resubmit... > I know that happened, I have heard of that before...... > > I like statistics, but we are just starting the count........ > J > > > -- > > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG > > List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > > > > -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 16 19:50:48 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:50:48 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A555@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Gregory, I hope you understand that I do and have supported AfriNIC from the outset. It is understandable that African governments would believe it strategic to their future to be involved in Global technology governance...I too believe it is. I would ask (you, those governments, the wind), though if becoming members of AfriNIC in the future or ARIN/RIPE NCC today would not advance that objective and give them to opportunity to become better informed of the technologies at the same time. As I have stated elsewhere and all RIRs do formally... these organizations are open to all stakeholders and each is welcomed for their contributions and involvement. bd -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net To: ppml at arin.net Sent: 11/16/04 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses A number of African governments have the feeling that it is of strategic importance for their countries to become involved in global technology governance as a means of influencing policy such that it encourages development of resources where historically these are limited and discourages policy that facilitates advancement merely for existing users/developers of those technologies. The fundamental problem with the policy making structures of organisations such as ARIN and the NRO, is that policy is effectively set by members, ie. organisations or individuals who are making use of IP addresses right now. To the best of my knowlege, there is little or no representation in ARIN's or the NRO's policy making by individuals/organisations/governments/whatever whose interest it is to consider those who do not currently use IP addresses but who may begin to do so in the future. The huge debate and lead time for the acceptance of ARIN policy 2002-3 clearly demonstrated this issue. The people who most stood to benefit from it were NOT ARIN members. Yet the people who influenced the repeated deferral of it and who finally voted to adopt it were mostly existing ARIN members who were acting out of good faith rather then their own interests. Even still, the ARIN policy making process is disproportionately represented by Internet Service Providers who stood to gain significantly from a slight barrier to IP address portability whereas if their customers were represented, there would be a much greater push for a lesser barrier (and possibly assignments even as small as /24). The ISP approach to 2002-3 was typically along the lines of "what is the effect on the routing table and can my current technology support it?" The views of corporates and small businesses were not assessed, but my guess is that they would probably have been along the lines of "Routing table? Aggregation? Huh? Our ability to change ISPs effortlessly is paramount. The technical experts can work out ways of improving router technology to cope and ISPs can carry the cost as we're paying them for service." Yes, it would have been possible for many non-ISP businesses to become ARIN members and influence this policy by sheer numbers. But how many are even aware of ARIN or know that they can become a member? Mostly they rely on their ISP to handle their Internet-related needs. And so their interests went largely unconsidered in the 2002-3 discussions. What African governments are saying is that because many Africans are technologically behind, it is important that they - as guardians of their citizens (many of whom do not yet have the understanding or knowlege to influence policy on technology) - to do it on their behalf and provide that representativity. In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes many Africans make with technology (particuarly the Internet), is to confuse policy making with policy implementation. Looking at the ITU recommendation, one of the biggest faults I can find in it is the notion that each African country needs to receive IPv6 address space in order to set policy relating to IPv6. In fact, this would be a costly and inefficient exercise and still fail to address how African goverments can influence global IPv6 policies. AfriNIC is going to face a massive challenge in the future. It has been modelling itself on existing RIR's and in doing so has attracted the support of the Internet community. It has also attracted the support of various African governments (in particular .ZA which is a big sponsor). However, in order to sustain itself in the future, it will need the continued support of African governments and they will put pressure on it to set policy that looks after the interests both of current IP address holders and persons who may in the future require IP addresses (but who have historically not been exposed to the Internet). Anyone who doubts this need just look at the example of Namespace ZA, the perfect case of an Internet community supported organisation that was forced into becoming redundant through legislation because the ZA government decided that it was too representative of the current Internet community and not representative enough of the FUTURE Internet community (ie.the general public). It is no co-incidence that the ZA government are such a big founding sponsor of AfriNIC. I have no doubt that their enthusiasm for an African organisation to set policy for the African region is because they feel it will be more in touch with the needs of the technology have-nots and will have a greater focus on education and outreach than an organisation like ARIN whose membership is mostly a lot more technically knowlegeable and therefore requires a greater focus on things like request turnaround time than on education. The key here is to persuade the ITU (and much of the rest of Africa), that initiatives like AfriNIC are already in existance to address the sort of concerns that they have and that they should use AfriNIC as a channel of contributing to IPv6 policy rather than trying to create an alternative that breaks a working global model. I have no doubt that AfriNIC will be under significantly more pressure from African governments than ARIN is from the US government or RIPE from the EU, however, I do believe that it is up to the challenge and that familiarity will assist it significantly. I also believe that the AfriNIC policy formation model will need to change significantly in the future if it is to address the concerns of representivity that are much more difficult in Africa (because of the digital chasm, never mind digital divide). I urge anyone providing input to the ITU on their proposals to point out the existance and relevence of AfriNIC and how an alternative country-specific allocation approach will undermine AfriNIC, divide Africa, and in doing soo weaken Africa's ability to stand united and in doing so have greater influence on global IP addressing issues. --Gregory Massel From randy at psg.com Tue Nov 16 19:57:34 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:57:34 -0800 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A546@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> <00ce01c4cc2b$6a6524d0$0a1929c4@groglet> Message-ID: <16794.41470.493996.703652@ran.psg.com> the best thing african governments could do for their peoples' communications interests would be to stop forcing, supporting, and empowering national monopoly ptts. almost everybody suffers from the disease of having the arrogance to claim they represent the otherwise unrepresented and no-present. the contest is extremely keen to see which of governments, the itu, and yes, even the historical internet governance organizations is most vulnerable to this character flaw. but i have a strong guess as to which will be the easier domain in which to fix it. my suggestion to include a librarian and a 15 year old with a modem on the founding icann board was never taken seriously. ah well. the american fcc has been better at this than most, though maybe not what one would ideally wish (not much is what i ideally wish). the itu has been notably horrible at it. the american government is getting so bad it would be a joke if tens of thousands were not being killed. so we do have a bit of pot and kettle problem here. but this should not discourage us from striving for ideals. randy From richardj at arin.net Tue Nov 16 22:29:01 2004 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:29:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <00ce01c4cc2b$6a6524d0$0a1929c4@groglet> Message-ID: <20041117032904.BC4A21FE89@mercury.arin.net> Gregory, Thank you very much for providing input to the list on this very important topic. You seem to have some misunderstanding of the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process in the ARIN region. Please allow me to provide clarification. For reference the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is thoroughly documented and may be found at the following URL: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html > The fundamental problem with the policy making structures > of organisations such as ARIN and the NRO, is that policy > is effectively set by members, ie. organisations or > individuals who are making use of IP addresses right now. This is not the case. Policies are proposed and discussed by anyone who has an interest in the management of Internet number resources. ARIN membership is not at all a consideration. Unlike organizations such as the ITU, membership is not a requirement to participate fully in the policy process. Interested parties do not have to seek sponsorship from members or ask to be included in their delegation in order to simply observe the proceeding much less to be able to say anything. The ARIN public policy mailing list and public policy meeting are the venues for policy discussion. Both venues are completely open to participation by any individual; including those affiliated with service providers, enterprises, governments, or any other stakeholder entity. > The huge debate and lead time for the acceptance of ARIN > policy 2002-3 clearly demonstrated this issue. The people > who most stood to benefit from it were NOT ARIN members. Yet > the people who influenced the repeated deferral of it > and who finally voted to adopt it were mostly existing > ARIN members who were acting out of good faith rather then > their own interests. The people who influenced the development of policy 2002-3 were those who participated in the discussion. Some of them were ARIN members, others were not. Since there is no polling of members on any policy issue, there is no way to determine how many members or non-members participated in the discussion. There was considerable discussion of this policy. Much of it was focused on the possible effects that this policy would have on the routing table. I would like to call your attention to ARIN policy 2003-15. ARIN policy 2003-15 and 2002-3 are very similar policies in that both deal with an allocation size smaller than the minimum allocation size. The big difference is that policy 2003-15 applies only to the African portion of the ARIN region. It was proposed, supported and adopted in recognition that only a few providers in Africa could qualify for the minimum allocation; but more could qualify and thus become independent if the minimum allocation size was smaller. In this case the time from proposal to final adoption was shorter. Policy proposal 2003-15 was introduced for discussion on the ARIN public policy mailing list on September 22, 2003. Following a review period in accordance with the policy process it was adopted. At the meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council on October 23, 2003 discussion of the proposal on the public policy mailing list and at the public policy meeting was noted as they recommended the adoption of the policy proposal to the ARIN Board of Trustees. Membership affiliation of the participants was not a consideration. This was also the case when the policy was ultimately adopted at the ARIN Board of Trustees meeting on December 22, 2003. http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2003_1023.html http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2003_1222.html > Yes, it would have been possible for many non-ISP businesses > to become ARIN members and influence this policy by sheer > numbers. But how many are even aware of ARIN or know that > they can become a member? Mostly they rely on their ISP to > handle their Internet-related needs. And so their interests > went largely unconsidered in the 2002-3 discussions. It would have been possible for many non-ISP businesses to influence this policy (2002-3) by sheer numbers if they only participated. They did not have to become members. In the case of 2003-15 many individuals who were likely NON-MEMBERS, very many of them from Africa, participated in the discussion and thus INFLUENCED its adoption. Outreach to persons and organizations that do not participate in the process or are not aware of ARIN is a continuous activity on the part of ARIN. To that end ARIN conducted a sub-regional meeting in Tanzania in June 2004. ARIN continues to seek other ways to promote participation and would welcome any suggestions you may have to achieve this goal. I would like to say one more time: Membership is not a prerequisite to participation. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of External Relations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From gregm at datapro.co.za Wed Nov 17 03:54:13 2004 From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:54:13 +0200 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A555@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <003001c4cc83$0375f260$68f223c4@gregm> > Gregory, > I hope you understand that I do and have supported AfriNIC from the > outset. > It is understandable that African governments would believe it strategic > to > their future to be involved in Global technology governance...I too > believe > it is. I would ask (you, those governments, the wind), though if becoming > members of AfriNIC in the future or ARIN/RIPE NCC today would not advance > that objective and give them to opportunity to become better informed of > the > technologies at the same time. > As I have stated elsewhere and all RIRs do formally... these organizations > are open to all stakeholders and each is welcomed for their contributions > and involvement. Thanks Bill. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sorry if my mail didn't clarify this. The key point I tried to make is that although the RIRs are formally open to all stakeholders, they are not currently effective at representing all stakeholders because they do not sufficiently engage the non-ISP community, and particularly government. My only dealings with government and parliament have been in South Africa, however, my experience in that country is that simply welcoming government participation in an industry body does nothing to achieve the goal of making them see eye-to-eye with you. The real successes we've had have been by direct engagement. ie. Formal requests for government to send representatives/speakers to Internet industry body events, written requests for support, etc. It can be a slow and tedious process engaging government, however, one must never overlook the power they have to either undermine or entrench an industry/community approach to self-governance. Proof that this approach works is in AfriNIC. Not only did the South African government decide to provide their full blessing for it, but they put their money behind it as well, providing office space and sponsorship. This was not achieved by us just opening our arms to government but rather by key people involved in the formation of AfriNIC (particularly Theo) actively engaging them (writing to them, meeting with them, taking the time to persuade them that this was the sort of project that was in line with their goals). So yes, I do believe that these governments should become members and/or actively participate in the RIRs policy meetings, however, I think it is extremely optimistic to expect them to do so without us actively encouraging them to and writing to them and persuading them that this would be a good way to achieve their goals. I also think that it is extemely naive to think that the ITU won't actively try and persuade them that their approach is better and that they're more involving of government. It is up to the RIRs to engage governments to ensure that the ITU's voice is not seen as being the only one in this matter! From richardj at arin.net Wed Nov 17 08:26:56 2004 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:26:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: [afrinic-discuss] ITU and Internet Numbers resources Management:The NRO response Message-ID: <20041117132700.432C11FE89@mercury.arin.net> Forwarded to PPML on behalf of Gregory Massel. -Richard Jimmerson -----Original Message----- From: afrinic-discuss-bounces at afrinic.org [mailto:afrinic-discuss-bounces at afrinic.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Massel Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:56 AM To: afrinic-discuss at afrinic.org; Adiel A. AKPLOGAN Cc: ispa at ispa.org.za; owner-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [afrinic-discuss] ITU and Internet Numbers resources Management:The NRO response Dear AfriNIC community There has been a lot of debate about the ITU draft on Internet Governance on the ARIN PPML already (which I'm cc'ing this to). I consider the ITU's conclusions regarding IP addresses and Africa to be extremely misleading. By attacking the current RIR structure, they are undermining AfriNIC and failing to acknowlege Africa's own efforts to address its own problems. I find it extremely ironic that they're claiming to be "defending the interests of developing countries" whilst recommending policy that would make redudant an organisation that is entirely representative of developing countries. They are also undermining the efforts of our friends at the other RIRs who have shown such good faith in supporting AfriNIC, particularly in the sharing of knowlege, training and willingness to transfer existing African members and their allocations to AfriNIC. I would encourage a strong, vocal and united response from the African Internet community supporting the NRO's response and dispelling the inaccuracies of the ITU draft. I have proposed to ISPA South Africa (also cc'ed in here) that we engage the South African government (Department of Communications) with a view to making a joint submission backing the NRO's response and endorsing AfriNIC as our choice of forum for dealing with Africa's concerns regarding management of IP addresses. I hope that this is an issue which AfrISPA will also be vocal about. (William!?!) Regards Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adiel A. AKPLOGAN" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: [afrinic-discuss] ITU and Internet Numbers resources Management: The NRO response > Dear collegues, > > Since the WSIS, there were many discussions on "Internet governance" and > last week, a working group on this issue was formed by the UN Secretary > General Kofi Anann: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/pi1620.doc.htm > > In line with this debate, the Director of ITU-TSB published a memorandum > "ITU and Internet Governance" for public comment. You can find the full > memorandum > at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/index.html. In this > document, > there is proposal to change the way Address space is managed, especially > for IPv6. > This proposal will have a serious impact on our community especially > Internet > Operators in our region. This is very important for us if we know that in > Africa, > small operators are fighting against monopolies and their freedom to > develop their > Independent Infrastructure. > > The Number Resource Organization (NRO), regenerating the Regional Internet > Registries has put together a public response to the part of the > memorandum > addressing the IP numbers management issue. We encourage you to read it > carefully and make it available for anybody that may be interested in your > Region, country, Government or Company. > > A summary of this response is available at: > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro18.html > > The full response is available at: > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro17.html > > Kind regards. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Afrinic-discuss mailing list > Afrinic-discuss at afrinic.org > http://listserv2.cfi.co.ug/mailman/listinfo/afrinic-discuss > _______________________________________________ Afrinic-discuss mailing list Afrinic-discuss at afrinic.org http://listserv2.cfi.co.ug/mailman/listinfo/afrinic-discuss From billd at cait.wustl.edu Wed Nov 17 10:01:47 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:01:47 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A55B@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Gregory stated.... > So yes, I do believe that these governments should become > members and/or > actively participate in the RIRs policy meetings, however, I > think it is > extremely optimistic to expect them to do so without us > actively encouraging > them to and writing to them and persuading them that this > would be a good > way to achieve their goals. > > I also think that it is extemely naive to think that the ITU > won't actively > try and persuade them that their approach is better and that > they're more > involving of government. It is up to the RIRs to engage > governments to > ensure that the ITU's voice is not seen as being the only one in this > matter! > Agreed. I think it is incumbent upon ARIN and the NRO to engage Governments directly and to invite them (and all other stakeholders) to become participants in physical and online meetings. I suppose a first step is to identify key individuals and departments and place them on the ARIN 'Announce' mail list. Another would be to offer specific 'education' on Internet technology and organization that could be offered to government entities...either as online or classroom tutorials. Thanks to you Gregory for your active participation and discussion.... Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 From lhoward at blackboard.com Wed Nov 17 11:44:19 2004 From: lhoward at blackboard.com (Lee Howard) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:44:19 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Bill Darte > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:02 AM > To: 'Gregory Massel'; Bill Darte; owner-ppml at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU > Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > Gregory stated.... > > > I also think that it is extemely naive to think that the ITU > > won't actively > > try and persuade them that their approach is better and that > > they're more > > involving of government. It is up to the RIRs to engage > > governments to > > ensure that the ITU's voice is not seen as being the only > one in this > > matter! > > > > Agreed. I think it is incumbent upon ARIN and the NRO to > engage Governments > directly and to invite them (and all other stakeholders) to become > participants in physical and online meetings. A letter to the President or Prime Minister is likely to accomplish as muchas a letter to a clerk. Perhaps the public can engage their local representatives, especially in governments where officials are keen to display interest in their constituents, and most especially in nations other than Canada and the U.S. > I suppose a first step is to identify key individuals and > departments and > place them on the ARIN 'Announce' mail list. er, after getting their consent. We wouldn't want to run afoul of anti-spam laws. > Another would be to offer specific 'education' on Internet > technology and > organization that could be offered to government > entities...either as online > or classroom tutorials. An excellent project for CLEW! Oh, sorry about that. > Thanks to you Gregory for your active participation and discussion.... Hear, hear! > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > 314 935-7575 Lee Howard, ARIN Board From gregm at datapro.co.za Wed Nov 17 13:32:01 2004 From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:32:01 +0200 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <20041117032904.BC4A21FE89@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: <005601c4ccd4$3f1f3780$0a1929c4@groglet> Hi Richard > This is not the case. Policies are proposed and discussed by anyone who has > an interest in the management of Internet number resources. ARIN membership > is not at all a consideration. Unlike organizations such as the ITU, I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to propose a policy or participate, however, I question how many non-members are (a) aware of this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings. I still believe that ARIN members "effectively" (note I used that word in my previous email as well) control ARIN policy, because they have the greatest understanding of ARIN and presence on the PPML and at ARIN meetings. I stand to be corrected. Maybe we can get some stats from the registration records for ARIN meetings on how many of the attendees at Reston were representing organisations that are ARIN members. > I would like to call your attention to ARIN policy 2003-15. ARIN policy > 2003-15 and 2002-3 are very similar policies in that both deal with an > allocation size smaller than the minimum allocation size. The big > difference is that policy 2003-15 applies only to the African portion of the > ARIN region. It was proposed, supported and adopted in recognition that > only a few providers in Africa could qualify for the minimum allocation; but > more could qualify and thus become independent if the minimum allocation > size was smaller. In this case the time from proposal to final adoption was > shorter. Having co-presented this policy with Bill in Chicago last year, I am extremely familiar with it. The interesting thing is that prior to this proposal there was a lot of frustration amongst African ISPs about the previous minimum allocation size but none were aware that they had any influence over the matter until you and other ARIN representatives attended the iWeek 2003 conference and pointed this out. This is why ARIN's active outreach effort to attend iWeek 2003 in Johannesburg was so important and why I'm saying that it is so important for RIRs to actively engage government. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to be familiar with the RIRs and their policies. I applaud ARIN for taking that initiative and encourage the initiative to be extended to the NRO. Particularly where governments are involved, outreach and engagement becomes critical. Had it not been for your presence in Johannesburg in 2003, I would not be on the PPML right now and not typing this email. That was not because of lack of interest on my part, but lack of knowlege about ARIN. Until then, my only interaction with ARIN was to apply for IP addresses and ASNs and even through such interaction I did not become aware that I had any influence over the policies governing those requests. Similarly, if the NRO expects to effectively counter the ITU's proposal, it needs to actively educate government and stakeholders. It is too idealistic to say that because ARIN meetings are open to attendence by all that government should know and understand the value of ARIN and the NRO and know that it can influence these organisations. The sudden influx of Africans on the PPML voicing their support for 2003-15 was notable. Didn't you wonder where they all appeared from or why they were so vocal? It was a direct result of ARIN's outreach at iWeek 2003. I also followed up by personally sending messages out to the ISPA and IOZ lists and spoke to a number of ISPs who had moaned about ARIN to me in the past. > Outreach to persons and organizations that do not participate in the process > or are not aware of ARIN is a continuous activity on the part of ARIN. To > that end ARIN conducted a sub-regional meeting in Tanzania in June 2004. > ARIN continues to seek other ways to promote participation and would welcome > any suggestions you may have to achieve this goal. I think ARIN has done very well at promoting participation, but given that it is not possible to get everyone to participate I think it would be useful for ARIN to identify those stakeholders who are unlikely to participate and task the AC with considering their interests in each policy proposal. The most obvious one is recipients of small re-assignments from LIRS. In terms of who to engage for further participation in ARIN, I would suggest every recipient of an ARIN resource (IP addresses, ASNs, etc) should be told more about ARIN as part of their request approval or denial. Regards Greg From randy at psg.com Wed Nov 17 13:39:59 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:39:59 -0800 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <20041117032904.BC4A21FE89@mercury.arin.net> <005601c4ccd4$3f1f3780$0a1929c4@groglet> Message-ID: <16795.39679.42183.195667@ran.psg.com> > I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to propose a policy > or participate, however, I question how many non-members are (a) aware of > this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings. you can count me as one randy From william at elan.net Wed Nov 17 14:15:45 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:15:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <16795.39679.42183.195667@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote: > > I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to propose a policy > > or participate, however, I question how many non-members are (a) aware of > > this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings. > > you can count me as one (c) And who were not previously involved in ARIN and had not been on ARIN BoT or ARIN AC? I generally agree with Gregory Massel - its largerly the same group of people who are involved and by far greater majority are from large ISPs who are the ones that I suspect have larger participation in elections as opposed to smaller ISPs (who can vote but too many dont) and as such have greater control over who is on ARIN BoT and ARIN AC and through that are capable of moving through policies that are of more interest to them rather then policies that are of more interest to public at-large. Now that said I certainly don't think ITU can do any better - in fact its even tightier group and in too many countries governments are corrupt or otherwise serve only small most powerfull group of persons/companies. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From lhoward at blackboard.com Wed Nov 17 13:54:10 2004 From: lhoward at blackboard.com (Lee Howard) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:54:10 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Gregory Massel > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:32 PM > To: richardj at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU > Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > I still believe that ARIN members "effectively" (note I used > that word in my > previous email as well) control ARIN policy, because they > have the greatest > understanding of ARIN and presence on the PPML and at ARIN > meetings. I stand > to be corrected. Your point being that the ARIN could do better at outreach, not that the ITU does better than ARIN. > Until then, my only > interaction with ARIN was to apply for IP addresses and ASNs and even > through such interaction I did not become aware that I had > any influence > over the policies governing those requests. Usually just before meetings ARIN's web site says, "Make your opinions known" with pointers to the public policy section. I believe the site is being redesigned, and input that invitations to participation could be bolder would be valuable. > Similarly, if the NRO expects to effectively counter the > ITU's proposal, it > needs to actively educate government and stakeholders. It is > too idealistic > to say that because ARIN meetings are open to attendence by all that > government should know and understand the value of ARIN and > the NRO and know that it can influence these organisations. True. Can you help us target our communications? > The sudden influx of Africans on the PPML voicing their > support for 2003-15 > was notable. Didn't you wonder where they all appeared from > or why they were > so vocal? It was a direct result of ARIN's outreach at iWeek > 2003. I also > followed up by personally sending messages out to the ISPA > and IOZ lists and > spoke to a number of ISPs who had moaned about ARIN to me in the past. Maybe ARIN should have somebody monitor those lists. Could be staff or AC. Suggest other venues. ARIN sends representatives to lots of meetings. > I think ARIN has done very well at promoting participation, > but given that > it is not possible to get everyone to participate I think it > would be useful > for ARIN to identify those stakeholders who are unlikely to > participate and > task the AC with considering their interests in each policy > proposal. The > most obvious one is recipients of small re-assignments from LIRS. The AC is tasked with considering their interests. You could help the AC by pointing out to smaller stakeholders that they can provide input both on PPML and by emailing AC members, who addresses are at http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_ac.html (ARIN's site > About us > Advisory Council) > > In terms of who to engage for further participation in ARIN, > I would suggest > every recipient of an ARIN resource (IP addresses, ASNs, etc) > should be told > more about ARIN as part of their request approval or denial. I like this idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure that denials already come with pointers to the policy process. > Regards > Greg Keep those cards and letters coming, this is exactly the kind of community participation we're boasting about! Lee This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. It may include Blackboard confidential and proprietary information, and is not for redistribution. From randy at psg.com Wed Nov 17 13:56:54 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:56:54 -0800 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <16795.39679.42183.195667@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <16795.40694.860481.613234@ran.psg.com> >> you can count me as one > (c) And who were not previously involved in ARIN and had not been on ARIN > BoT or ARIN AC? i am sure there are many examples. probably 1/3 of the attendees of the last meeting. but you can keep making qualifications forever until no one on the planet meets them. personally, i think you should exclude blond males. big whoopie doo. the point is that arin is by far the most open and prudent of the internet shepherding organizations we have today. sure it can be improved, and we should work to do so. randy From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed Nov 17 14:02:44 2004 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:02:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDBD@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> just wanted to say that I agree with Lee's observations below....that being that ARIN should look at their outreach programs to see where and if they can be more effective. I would like to point out that ARIN (and all existing RIR's) must be doing something right since LACNIC and soon to be AFRINIC have emerged in the last few years just for the purpose of serving their regions (governments?) better. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at blackboard.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:54 PM To: Gregory Massel; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Gregory Massel > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:32 PM > To: richardj at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU > Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > I still believe that ARIN members "effectively" (note I used > that word in my > previous email as well) control ARIN policy, because they > have the greatest > understanding of ARIN and presence on the PPML and at ARIN > meetings. I stand > to be corrected. Your point being that the ARIN could do better at outreach, not that the ITU does better than ARIN. > Until then, my only > interaction with ARIN was to apply for IP addresses and ASNs and even > through such interaction I did not become aware that I had > any influence > over the policies governing those requests. Usually just before meetings ARIN's web site says, "Make your opinions known" with pointers to the public policy section. I believe the site is being redesigned, and input that invitations to participation could be bolder would be valuable. > Similarly, if the NRO expects to effectively counter the > ITU's proposal, it > needs to actively educate government and stakeholders. It is > too idealistic > to say that because ARIN meetings are open to attendence by all that > government should know and understand the value of ARIN and > the NRO and know that it can influence these organisations. True. Can you help us target our communications? > The sudden influx of Africans on the PPML voicing their > support for 2003-15 > was notable. Didn't you wonder where they all appeared from > or why they were > so vocal? It was a direct result of ARIN's outreach at iWeek > 2003. I also > followed up by personally sending messages out to the ISPA > and IOZ lists and > spoke to a number of ISPs who had moaned about ARIN to me in the past. Maybe ARIN should have somebody monitor those lists. Could be staff or AC. Suggest other venues. ARIN sends representatives to lots of meetings. > I think ARIN has done very well at promoting participation, > but given that > it is not possible to get everyone to participate I think it > would be useful > for ARIN to identify those stakeholders who are unlikely to > participate and > task the AC with considering their interests in each policy > proposal. The > most obvious one is recipients of small re-assignments from LIRS. The AC is tasked with considering their interests. You could help the AC by pointing out to smaller stakeholders that they can provide input both on PPML and by emailing AC members, who addresses are at http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_ac.html (ARIN's site > About us > Advisory Council) > > In terms of who to engage for further participation in ARIN, > I would suggest > every recipient of an ARIN resource (IP addresses, ASNs, etc) > should be told > more about ARIN as part of their request approval or denial. I like this idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure that denials already come with pointers to the policy process. > Regards > Greg Keep those cards and letters coming, this is exactly the kind of community participation we're boasting about! Lee This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. It may include Blackboard confidential and proprietary information, and is not for redistribution. From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed Nov 17 14:03:20 2004 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:03:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDBE@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> well put.... -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:57 PM To: william(at)elan.net Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses >> you can count me as one > (c) And who were not previously involved in ARIN and had not been on ARIN > BoT or ARIN AC? i am sure there are many examples. probably 1/3 of the attendees of the last meeting. but you can keep making qualifications forever until no one on the planet meets them. personally, i think you should exclude blond males. big whoopie doo. the point is that arin is by far the most open and prudent of the internet shepherding organizations we have today. sure it can be improved, and we should work to do so. randy From william at elan.net Wed Nov 17 14:41:52 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:41:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDBD@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Sweeting, John wrote: > just wanted to say that I agree with Lee's observations below....that being > that ARIN should look at their outreach programs to see where and if they > can be more effective. I would like to point out that ARIN (and all existing > RIR's) must be doing something right since LACNIC and soon to be AFRINIC > have emerged in the last few years just for the purpose of serving their > regions (governments?) better. If I understnand the 5 RIR for all major continents (or rather parts of the world as Asia & Europe are same continent) had been the goals from almost the start of the process moving from single Internic to multiple RIRs. And LACNIC had been in process of being setup from 1997 or 1998 and so is AfriNIC. The dates for setup corresponds more to when the region's internet become more developed and when there were enough ISPs there to form organization that could become self-sufficient in couple years (if I undersand for both LACNIC and for AfriNIC first two years they are being financially supported by outside organizations and not strictly by members) -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed Nov 17 14:20:31 2004 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:20:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDC0@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> and the point? -----Original Message----- From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:42 PM To: Sweeting, John Cc: 'Lee Howard'; Gregory Massel; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Sweeting, John wrote: > just wanted to say that I agree with Lee's observations below....that being > that ARIN should look at their outreach programs to see where and if they > can be more effective. I would like to point out that ARIN (and all existing > RIR's) must be doing something right since LACNIC and soon to be AFRINIC > have emerged in the last few years just for the purpose of serving their > regions (governments?) better. If I understnand the 5 RIR for all major continents (or rather parts of the world as Asia & Europe are same continent) had been the goals from almost the start of the process moving from single Internic to multiple RIRs. And LACNIC had been in process of being setup from 1997 or 1998 and so is AfriNIC. The dates for setup corresponds more to when the region's internet become more developed and when there were enough ISPs there to form organization that could become self-sufficient in couple years (if I undersand for both LACNIC and for AfriNIC first two years they are being financially supported by outside organizations and not strictly by members) -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From william at elan.net Wed Nov 17 14:55:09 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:55:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDC0@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Sweeting, John wrote: > and the point? That emergence of these RIRs was original goal and not just something that happened in "last few years". BTW - In general I completely agree that ITU taking over IPv6 and assigning blocks on per-country basis is stupid idea and that instead governments should look about making their concerns heard through RIR structure or make their case for new RIR if they think their IPv6 requirements are so unique to their country. > -----Original Message----- > From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:42 PM > To: Sweeting, John > Cc: 'Lee Howard'; Gregory Massel; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on > th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Sweeting, John wrote: > > > just wanted to say that I agree with Lee's observations below....that > being > > that ARIN should look at their outreach programs to see where and if they > > can be more effective. I would like to point out that ARIN (and all > existing > > RIR's) must be doing something right since LACNIC and soon to be AFRINIC > > have emerged in the last few years just for the purpose of serving their > > regions (governments?) better. > > If I understnand the 5 RIR for all major continents (or rather parts of > the world as Asia & Europe are same continent) had been the goals from > almost the start of the process moving from single Internic to > multiple RIRs. > > And LACNIC had been in process of being setup from 1997 or 1998 and so is > AfriNIC. The dates for setup corresponds more to when the region's internet > become more developed and when there were enough ISPs there to form > organization that could become self-sufficient in couple years (if I > undersand for both LACNIC and for AfriNIC first two years they are being > financially supported by outside organizations and not strictly by members) > > -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed Nov 17 14:36:55 2004 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:36:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDC2@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> great, then we agree. BTW to some one as old as me (and bill darte for that matter..lol) 1998 was only a few years ago. -----Original Message----- From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:55 PM To: Sweeting, John Cc: 'Lee Howard'; Gregory Massel; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Sweeting, John wrote: > and the point? That emergence of these RIRs was original goal and not just something that happened in "last few years". BTW - In general I completely agree that ITU taking over IPv6 and assigning blocks on per-country basis is stupid idea and that instead governments should look about making their concerns heard through RIR structure or make their case for new RIR if they think their IPv6 requirements are so unique to their country. > -----Original Message----- > From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:42 PM > To: Sweeting, John > Cc: 'Lee Howard'; Gregory Massel; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on > th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Sweeting, John wrote: > > > just wanted to say that I agree with Lee's observations below....that > being > > that ARIN should look at their outreach programs to see where and if they > > can be more effective. I would like to point out that ARIN (and all > existing > > RIR's) must be doing something right since LACNIC and soon to be AFRINIC > > have emerged in the last few years just for the purpose of serving their > > regions (governments?) better. > > If I understnand the 5 RIR for all major continents (or rather parts of > the world as Asia & Europe are same continent) had been the goals from > almost the start of the process moving from single Internic to > multiple RIRs. > > And LACNIC had been in process of being setup from 1997 or 1998 and so is > AfriNIC. The dates for setup corresponds more to when the region's internet > become more developed and when there were enough ISPs there to form > organization that could become self-sufficient in couple years (if I > undersand for both LACNIC and for AfriNIC first two years they are being > financially supported by outside organizations and not strictly by members) > > -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Wed Nov 17 15:44:41 2004 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:44:41 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: > I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to propose a policy > or participate, however, I question how many non-members are (a) aware of > this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings. a.) I`m an "aware" non-ARIN member. I stumbled across PPML in 2002 looking for information to acquire additional public ip address space. My ISP declined my request saying that ARIN policy says I do not qualify. But only after I insisted on getting a reasonable explanation. My ISP was not going to "fight" for me. I had to find a "voice" of my own. b.) I`ve never been to a meeting, and in my current position, probably never will. I`m an PPML lurker mostly, but I did provide input on one policy proposal in the past (2002). In that discussion, I mentioned many of the things Gregory mentioned. Many offered the same suggested we`re currently seeing now. Since this seems to be a re-occurring theme, my concern is that not enough is being done in a timely fashion. I`m not sure what I can do. My voice is just too insignificant to ITU to make a difference. If ARIN do not want government control over (I)internet (is it a proper noun now?) names and numbers, then take action; be more pro-active in getting the word out. The notice to PPML comes only a couple days before ITU will be accepting comments. I believe the time has come and gone (November 15, 2004). Or did I read it wrong? --Jeff From hannigan at verisign.com Thu Nov 18 12:53:03 2004 From: hannigan at verisign.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:53:03 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69183D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> > -----Original Message from William Leibzon ----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:16 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU > Comments on > the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to > propose a policy > > > or participate, however, I question how many non-members > are (a) aware of > > > this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings. > > > > you can count me as one > > (c) And who were not previously involved in ARIN and had not > been on ARIN > BoT or ARIN AC? > > I generally agree with Gregory Massel - its largerly the same > group of > people who are involved and by far greater majority are from > large ISPs Here's some quick stats. I won't say they are 100% accurate, I but for the purpose of discussion, it should be ok: TIER1: 14 OTHER ISP: 35 == TOTAL 49 OTHER: 28 EDU: 11 VENDORS: 09 GOV: 05 RIR: 07 == TOTAL 60 There's more NON ISP participation than ISP. > who are the ones that I suspect have larger participation in elections > as opposed to smaller ISPs (who can vote but too many dont) > and as such > have greater control over who is on ARIN BoT and ARIN AC and > through that > are capable of moving through policies that are of more > interest to them > rather then policies that are of more interest to public at-large. The minority of the BoT is made up of ISP. The AC makeup is largely non tier 1 ISP and predominantly other ISP. AOL, Cisco, and MCI had the most people attending outside of ARIN staff. MCI, nor Cisco employed folks hold any elected position as far as I am aware. > Now that said I certainly don't think ITU can do any better - in fact > its even tightier group and in too many countries governments > are corrupt I disagree. I don't have any proof to offer except my experience working internationally via large ISP's. I'd rather deal with global committees than labor unions any day of the week. > or otherwise serve only small most powerfull group of > persons/companies. There's certainly nothing wrong with experienced people offering input. From hannigan at verisign.com Thu Nov 18 12:54:34 2004 From: hannigan at verisign.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:54:34 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69183E@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> One minor note, these stats are gathered from XIII attendance available via the ARIN website. Sorry I missed that sentence. -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan at verisign.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannigan, Martin > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:53 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU > Comments on > the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > > > > -----Original Message from William Leibzon ----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:16 PM > > To: Randy Bush > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU > > Comments on > > the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > > > I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to > > propose a policy > > > > or participate, however, I question how many non-members > > are (a) aware of > > > > this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings. > > > > > > you can count me as one > > > > (c) And who were not previously involved in ARIN and had not > > been on ARIN > > BoT or ARIN AC? > > > > I generally agree with Gregory Massel - its largerly the same > > group of > > people who are involved and by far greater majority are from > > large ISPs > > Here's some quick stats. I won't say they are 100% > accurate, I but for the purpose of discussion, it > should be ok: > > TIER1: 14 > OTHER ISP: 35 > == > TOTAL 49 > > OTHER: 28 > EDU: 11 > VENDORS: 09 > GOV: 05 > RIR: 07 > == > TOTAL 60 > > There's more NON ISP participation than ISP. > > > who are the ones that I suspect have larger participation > in elections > > as opposed to smaller ISPs (who can vote but too many dont) > > and as such > > have greater control over who is on ARIN BoT and ARIN AC and > > through that > > are capable of moving through policies that are of more > > interest to them > > rather then policies that are of more interest to public at-large. > > The minority of the BoT is made up of ISP. > > The AC makeup is largely non tier 1 ISP and predominantly other ISP. > > AOL, Cisco, and MCI had the most people attending outside of > ARIN staff. MCI, nor Cisco employed folks hold any elected > position as far as I am aware. > > > Now that said I certainly don't think ITU can do any better > - in fact > > its even tightier group and in too many countries governments > > are corrupt > > I disagree. I don't have any proof to offer except my experience > working internationally via large ISP's. I'd rather deal with > global committees than labor unions any day of the week. > > > or otherwise serve only small most powerfull group of > > persons/companies. > > There's certainly nothing wrong with experienced people offering > input. > > From jim at tgasolutions.com Thu Nov 18 13:58:39 2004 From: jim at tgasolutions.com (Jim McBurnett) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:58:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <5432D045DAFD8040BCE549749263BD0023AC52@testsystem2.tga.local> Greg, >From my perspective, a non-ARIN Member, I see 3 things- 1. Many people do not even know what ARIN is! I took an informal survey of 10 IT professional's in my area. And 5 IT managers. The professional's varied from desktop support to CCNA's. Of those 15, 6 knew what ARIN is, 3 knew they could somehow be involved without paying dues etc, and 6 were unsure of any way they could influence policy. 2. This had some discussion earlier on a different thread, about a specific policy and whether or not the word was out to the community. If a policy that affects hundreds of potential (policy) users, is not known to them, how would they even know they can comment and participate! 3. YES, most of the people that participate on here have some kind of stake, as with most groups. If you take this large scale, I bet there are no less than 50 organizations that you can participate in that you do not know about..... This is just the way things happen..... And lastly, I don't have #'s on this, but I am willing to say that there are a fair number of policies even authored by non-ARIN members. (Richard do you know?) IE Dr Jefferey Race-- Didn't he do one year before last????? Just my 2cents worth... Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregory Massel [mailto:gregm at datapro.co.za] > > I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to > propose a policy or participate, however, I question how many > non-members are (a) aware of this; and (b) participate in the > ARIN PPML and at meetings. > > I still believe that ARIN members "effectively" (note I used > that word in my previous email as well) control ARIN policy, > because they have the greatest understanding of ARIN and > presence on the PPML and at ARIN meetings. I stand to be > corrected. Maybe we can get some stats from the registration > records for ARIN meetings on how many of the attendees at > Reston were representing organisations that are ARIN members. > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Thu Nov 18 14:29:24 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:29:24 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A56D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> >> > Greg, > From my perspective, a non-ARIN Member, I see 3 things- > 1. Many people do not even know what ARIN is! > I took an informal survey of 10 IT professional's > in my area. And 5 IT managers. > The professional's varied from desktop support to CCNA's. > Of those 15, 6 knew what ARIN is, 3 knew they could somehow > be involved without paying dues etc, and 6 were unsure of any > way they could influence policy. > 2. This had some discussion earlier on a different thread, > about a specific > policy and whether or not the word was out to the community. > If a policy that affects hundreds of potential (policy) > users, is not known > to them, how would they even know they can comment and > participate! Many stakeholders are so indirect that they do not NEED to know. The home Internet user, the small business entity. 3. YES, most of the people that participate on > here have some kind of stake, > as with most groups. If you take this large scale, I > bet there are no less than 50 > organizations that you can participate in that you do > not know about..... > This is just the way things happen..... > I'm sure that there are lots of organizations that look out for my interests that I don't directly participate in... (thanks to all those...whoever they are. > And lastly, I don't have #'s on this, but I am willing to say > that there are a fair number of policies even authored by > non-ARIN members. (Richard do you know?) IE Dr Jefferey > Race-- Didn't he do one year before last????? Of course anyone can author a policy, but one has to identify an impact first. > > Just my 2cents worth... > > Jim > I suggest that those on the front lines...the ISPs should be identifying that they are ARIN members and advocate for community interest/participation. How many have newsletters that could include something about ARIN? That does not abosolve ARIN of the responsibility to attempt notify stakeholders of the role of ARIN and to invite participation. I would be interested in this list identifying stakeholders that have a 'significant' stake in Internet number resources that might NOT be aware of ARIN and its role. This would be the first concrete step toward effective, universal stakeholder involvement. Next we might find ways to collaborate with other entities that already have visibility to these entities or find other ways of notification. Finally, there are ways that ARIN might influence general identity through public service and public relations strategies....provide copy to newspapers and news programs, etc. Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 From randy at psg.com Thu Nov 18 14:29:49 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:29:49 -0800 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A56D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <16796.63533.836047.247138@ran.psg.com> > Many stakeholders are so indirect that they do not NEED to know. perhaps they should be allowed to determine that for themselves. if they are stakeholders, perhaps placing the stakes where they can't be found is not a reasonable social contract. randy From john at chagres.net Thu Nov 18 14:40:17 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:40:17 -0700 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses In-Reply-To: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A56D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A56D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <419CFAA1.3020900@chagres.net> Part of the issue, as I've mentioned many a time before, during and after my time on the AC is. Many US based ISP's, ergo the small business thats an ISP, don't view ARIN as something to be involved with. They see this because of: 1. ARIN is for the big boys. 2. ARIN was really a PIA for them to deal with in the past and thus they don't care about it today. 3. ARIN, what have they done for me lately?? I'm a business person when it affects my bottom line I'll care. (this is bad since some policies from ARIN aren't know until after the fact) 4. ARIN, who are they again ? Oh yeah My upstream has to deal with them. Bill, the entire outreach and education function of ARIN is sadly missing. ARIN needs to reach out, and yes that might mean it needs to be a bit more BOLD about it. NANOG doesn't count. NANOG in the view of the small to mid size ISP (more of them than large guys), is for the Big Boys as well. Its topics are not something that a typical /20 holder would goto. Travel costs aside. Personally I believe the AC needs to be much more active and openly communicating with the "stake holders" The AC is involved on some policy making functions, but kept out of other policy making functions. The AC is the path for the community to the BOT, and if the BOT is talking about policy, then the AC had better be getting active feed back from the community. This hasn't happened in the past. john brown Bill Darte wrote: > >>Greg, >>From my perspective, a non-ARIN Member, I see 3 things- >>1. Many people do not even know what ARIN is! >> I took an informal survey of 10 IT professional's >> in my area. And 5 IT managers. >> The professional's varied from desktop support to CCNA's. >> Of those 15, 6 knew what ARIN is, 3 knew they could somehow >> be involved without paying dues etc, and 6 were unsure of any >> way they could influence policy. >>2. This had some discussion earlier on a different thread, >>about a specific >> policy and whether or not the word was out to the community. >> If a policy that affects hundreds of potential (policy) >>users, is not known >> to them, how would they even know they can comment and >>participate! > > > Many stakeholders are so indirect that they do not NEED to know. The home > Internet user, the small business entity. > > 3. YES, most of the people that participate on > >>here have some kind of stake, >> as with most groups. If you take this large scale, I >>bet there are no less than 50 >> organizations that you can participate in that you do >>not know about..... >> This is just the way things happen..... >> > > > I'm sure that there are lots of organizations that look out for my interests > that I don't directly participate in... (thanks to all those...whoever they > are. > > >>And lastly, I don't have #'s on this, but I am willing to say >>that there are a fair number of policies even authored by >>non-ARIN members. (Richard do you know?) IE Dr Jefferey >>Race-- Didn't he do one year before last????? > > > Of course anyone can author a policy, but one has to identify an impact > first. > > >>Just my 2cents worth... >> >>Jim >> > > > I suggest that those on the front lines...the ISPs should be identifying > that they are ARIN members and advocate for community > interest/participation. How many have newsletters that could include > something about ARIN? > > That does not abosolve ARIN of the responsibility to attempt notify > stakeholders of the role of ARIN and to invite participation. > > I would be interested in this list identifying stakeholders that have a > 'significant' stake in Internet number resources that might NOT be aware of > ARIN and its role. This would be the first concrete step toward effective, > universal stakeholder involvement. Next we might find ways to collaborate > with other entities that already have visibility to these entities or find > other ways of notification. Finally, there are ways that ARIN might > influence general identity through public service and public relations > strategies....provide copy to newspapers and news programs, etc. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > 314 935-7575 > > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Thu Nov 18 14:48:44 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:48:44 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A56E@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> > > > Many stakeholders are so indirect that they do not NEED to know. > > perhaps they should be allowed to determine that for > themselves. if they are stakeholders, perhaps placing the > stakes where they can't be found is not a reasonable social contract. > > randy > Entirely true and I meant no representation otherwise. Should have said "may not" need to know. Still your point is well taken and the remainder of my unquoted message was specifically to the point of trying to collaborate and extent the ARIN outreach to penetrate the fog... But I doubt whether you are advocating putting enough stakes in the ground such that the cost becomes exhorbitant. Or DO you suggest spending ARIN income in quantities sufficient to reach ALL stakeholders so that they can "determine for themselves" that they don't need the information? bd From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Thu Nov 18 15:51:52 2004 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:51:52 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCDD9@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> I don't think you can say that ARIN or other RIR's information (stakes)are placed where they cannot be found. I am having a small problem believing that anyone that needs to/wants to know anything about Internet number resources cannot find the information that they need, but from this thread I do think that the RIR's probably need to look more into their outreach programs and the intended audience. I will personally take this to the AC chair for discussion in our next meeting. -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 2:30 PM To: Bill Darte Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > Many stakeholders are so indirect that they do not NEED to know. perhaps they should be allowed to determine that for themselves. if they are stakeholders, perhaps placing the stakes where they can't be found is not a reasonable social contract. randy From randy at psg.com Thu Nov 18 20:14:20 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:14:20 -0800 Subject: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses References: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A56E@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <16797.18668.889296.944439@ran.psg.com> > But I doubt whether you are advocating putting enough stakes in the ground > such that the cost becomes exhorbitant. Or DO you suggest spending ARIN > income in quantities sufficient to reach ALL stakeholders so that they can > "determine for themselves" that they don't need the information? as i said on 2004.11.16 > my suggestion to include a librarian and a 15 year old with a modem > on the founding icann board was never taken seriously. ah well. > the american fcc has been better at this than most, though maybe > not what one would ideally wish ... perhaps arin could take a bit of a lead in this. get real consumers on the bot. solicit a small isp or two. let the bot be more of a representative body than a popularity contest. randy From lhoward at blackboard.com Fri Nov 19 10:12:39 2004 From: lhoward at blackboard.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:12:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Randy Bush > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:14 PM > To: Bill Darte > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [SPAM] - RE: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response > to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) > Addresses - Bayesian Filter detected spam > > as i said on 2004.11.16 > > > my suggestion to include a librarian and a 15 year old with a modem > > on the founding icann board was never taken seriously. ah well. > > the american fcc has been better at this than most, though maybe > > not what one would ideally wish ... > > perhaps arin could take a bit of a lead in this. get real consumers > on the bot. solicit a small isp or two. let the bot be more of a > representative body than a popularity contest. Interesting. Are you asserting that elections don't provide satisfactory representation, or that limiting voter eligibility to members limits the representation to People Like the Members? How could ARIN affect the membership of the BoT without reducing the openness of the process? I'm not sure what Real Consumers look like. Are they kind of like Real Americans? Or Real Men who Don't Eat Quiche (C)? Or Real Butter (tm)? Are they employees of small consulting companies, stub networks, and educational institutions? http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html By the way, a teenager with a modem has run for the Board several times. I look forward to your nominations of librarians next year. > randy Lee PS: The AC has fairly broad demographics: 5 Internet carriers (telco, collo, and cable, large and small), 3 TLD or root operators, 3 educational/research institutions, 2 consultants, 1 aircraft manufacturer, and Cathy Wittbrodt. Source: http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_ac.html This e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. It may include Blackboard confidential and proprietary information, and is not for redistribution. From rdasilva at va.rr.com Fri Nov 19 10:43:55 2004 From: rdasilva at va.rr.com (da Silva, Ron) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:43:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B921@RRMAILER.rr.com> I am personally quite interested in the developments of my local, state and national legislatures. Because of this, I am very frustrated that someone doesn't personally notify me of every public hearing, interpret the text of all proposed statutes into simple language so that I can understand the implications, and ensure that everyone else who isn't currently involved or interested is forced into a similar level of participation. I believe my governments should spend whatever it takes to meet these expectations and levy a tax on everyone else to subsidize this proactive initiative. Bantering, -ron From billd at cait.wustl.edu Fri Nov 19 11:09:16 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:09:16 -0600 Subject: [ppml] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Int ernet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A574@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Are you suggesting that individuals themselves should be responsible....? ....to identify those things that affect them and seek solutions and collaborating/supporting individuals and organizations....? We have similarly novel idea here at the university.... students are responsible for learning.... teachers and facilities are there only to support them.... bd > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of da Silva, Ron > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:44 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e > Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses > > > > I am personally quite interested in the developments of my > local, state and national legislatures. Because of this, I > am very frustrated that someone doesn't personally notify me > of every public hearing, interpret the text of all proposed > statutes into simple language so that I can understand the > implications, and ensure that everyone else who isn't > currently involved or interested is forced into a similar > level of participation. I believe my governments should > spend whatever it takes to meet these expectations and levy a > tax on everyone else to subsidize this proactive initiative. > > Bantering, > -ron > From Suzanne_Woolf at isc.org Fri Nov 19 11:07:06 2004 From: Suzanne_Woolf at isc.org (Suzanne Woolf) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:07:06 +0000 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041119160706.GA7465@farside.isc.org> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:12:39AM -0500, Lee Howard wrote: > > PS: The AC has fairly broad demographics: > 5 Internet carriers (telco, collo, and cable, large and small), > 3 TLD or root operators, > 3 educational/research institutions, > 2 consultants, > 1 aircraft manufacturer, > and Cathy Wittbrodt. > Source: http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_ac.html > Arguably, with respect to influence on ARIN policy, this is more important than diversity and "representativeness" of the Board. Both roles are critically important for ARIN, but as currently constructed, the AC is closer to the evolution and eventual adoption of policy than the Board. And having no direct fiduciary responsibility to ARIN as an organization, the AC has a freer hand to consider potential policy impacts beyond ARIN. The slates of candidates for both jobs at election time last month were encouraging-- the AC particularly had a broad range of qualified, concerned candidates. I can remember past years when it was difficult to meet the minimum numbers of candidates to satisfy the bylaws, so this was really good to see. There's still work to do, but as far as diversity and inclusiveness ARIN has made giant steps. I have confidence in this process to continue, especially with the kind of energetic, involved oversight from the community we've gotten to see in recent ppml and Public Policy Meeting discussions. Suzanne Woolf ARIN AC From rdasilva at va.rr.com Fri Nov 19 11:43:01 2004 From: rdasilva at va.rr.com (da Silva, Ron) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:43:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] NRO Response to ITU Comments on th e Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses Message-ID: <5D200A6BB92BB54F8E2FED8E4A28D7630177B922@RRMAILER.rr.com> > Are you suggesting that individuals themselves should be responsible....? > ....to identify those things that affect them and seek solutions and > collaborating/supporting individuals and organizations....? I made no such suggestion; however, it appears that you have. And perhaps some balance is most realistic in that we leave it up to the individual, organization or government to get involved when so desired and yet have some level of presence so that when someone has an interest, it is easy for him to readily pursue his liberty to participate. > We have similarly novel idea here at the university.... students are > responsible for learning.... teachers and facilities are there only to > support them.... Likewise, individuals/organizations are responsible for participating in the OPEN process...the AC, BOT and staff are there to support them... The critical issue (before this thread began swirling around CLEW) is the openness of the present RIR processes vs. the closed system of the ITU. I hope we have agreement there. Are there constituencies that are disenfranchised in the current mode of operation? And if so, what (if any) effort should be applied to preserve that posture of openness? -ron From randy at psg.com Fri Nov 19 14:38:03 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:03 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Re: composition of and representation on the BoT References: Message-ID: <16798.19355.732738.359223@ran.psg.com> >>> my suggestion to include a librarian and a 15 year old with a modem >>> on the founding icann board was never taken seriously. ah well. >>> the american fcc has been better at this than most, though maybe >>> not what one would ideally wish ... >> >> perhaps arin could take a bit of a lead in this. get real consumers >> on the bot. solicit a small isp or two. let the bot be more of a >> representative body than a popularity contest. > > Interesting. Are you asserting that elections don't provide > satisfactory representation, or that limiting voter eligibility to > members limits the representation to People Like the Members? How > could ARIN affect the membership of the BoT without reducing the > openness of the process? read the federalist papers > I'm not sure what Real Consumers look like. i made two concrete suggestions randy From andrew.dul at quark.net Fri Nov 19 22:21:46 2004 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:21:46 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20041119192146.01be7798@mail.quark.net> At 10:12 AM 11/19/2004 -0500, Lee Howard wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Randy Bush >> perhaps arin could take a bit of a lead in this. get real consumers >> on the bot. solicit a small isp or two. let the bot be more of a >> representative body than a popularity contest. > >Interesting. Are you asserting that elections don't provide >satisfactory representation, or that limiting voter eligibility to >members limits the representation to People Like the Members? How >could ARIN affect the membership of the BoT without reducing the >openness of the process? > I'd of course like to see more people to participate in the process. However ARIN currently has over 2100 members and unfortunately from my reading of the election results only about 100 organizations even bothered to vote in the election. It is more than just candidates, IMO. I'd certainly like to every organization to vote. http://www.arin.net/announcements/20041105.html Andrew From william at elan.net Fri Nov 19 23:19:41 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:19:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20041119192146.01be7798@mail.quark.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Andrew Dul wrote: > I'd of course like to see more people to participate in the process. > However ARIN currently has over 2100 members and unfortunately from my > reading of the election results only about 100 organizations even bothered > to vote in the election. It is more than just candidates, IMO. http://www.arin.net/announcements/20041105.html Total Votes Cast for BoT: 259 Total Votes Cast for AC: 588 Each organization voted for 2 BoT and 5 AC sits, so it should be that the number of organizations that participated was: based on BoT votes - 259/2 = 129.5 based on AC votes - 588/5 = 117.6 I'm sorry but am I the only one that things something is wrong? The resulting number was supposed to be integer and I was expecting numbers to be the same! Here is how it looked for previous election: http://www.arin.net/announcements/20031107.html Total Votes Cast for BoT: 184 Total Votes Cast for AC: 644 Each organization voted for 2 BoT and 8 AC sits, so it should be that the number of organizations that participated was: based on BoT votes - 184/2 = 92 based on AC votes - 644/8 = 80.5 Can somebody explain why the difference and how many ARIN members really participated in each of these elections? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- But in any case it does look a lot like only 5% - 6% of the ARIN membership participates in elections - that is really really bad! I think for next year ARIN needs to do somekind of voter-drive, perhaps an extra /20 for every member that votes will help :) And based on the number I suspect that those who voted are pretty much the same group that participates in ARIN members meeting or otherwise actively pacticipate in ppml, which means its really it the same small group of people/companies that determine ARIN policies and that has been my suspision all along. --- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From owen at delong.com Fri Nov 19 23:29:44 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:29:44 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06A8ECD137F9A26ED91753CD@mishak-rh.hq.netli.lan> It is not invalid to only vote for one BOT or for 1,2,3, or 4 AC positions and abstain from one. In a vote for N office, rarely to the votes cast divided by N result in an integer. Just human nature. A combination of "I only like N-y of the candidates", "I can't read and follow directions, but, I'm going to vote anyway", and other factors. Owen (Who used to work for a company that made voting machines) --On Friday, November 19, 2004 08:19:41 PM -0800 "william(at)elan.net" wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> I'd of course like to see more people to participate in the process. >> However ARIN currently has over 2100 members and unfortunately from my >> reading of the election results only about 100 organizations even >> bothered to vote in the election. It is more than just candidates, IMO. > > http://www.arin.net/announcements/20041105.html > Total Votes Cast for BoT: 259 > Total Votes Cast for AC: 588 > > Each organization voted for 2 BoT and 5 AC sits, so it should be that > the number of organizations that participated was: > based on BoT votes - 259/2 = 129.5 > based on AC votes - 588/5 = 117.6 > > I'm sorry but am I the only one that things something is wrong? The > resulting number was supposed to be integer and I was expecting numbers > to be the same! > > Here is how it looked for previous election: > http://www.arin.net/announcements/20031107.html > Total Votes Cast for BoT: 184 > Total Votes Cast for AC: 644 > > Each organization voted for 2 BoT and 8 AC sits, so it should be that > the number of organizations that participated was: > based on BoT votes - 184/2 = 92 > based on AC votes - 644/8 = 80.5 > > Can somebody explain why the difference and how many ARIN members really > participated in each of these elections? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > But in any case it does look a lot like only 5% - 6% of the ARIN > membership participates in elections - that is really really bad! > I think for next year ARIN needs to do somekind of voter-drive, > perhaps an extra /20 for every member that votes will help :) > > And based on the number I suspect that those who voted are pretty much > the same group that participates in ARIN members meeting or otherwise > actively pacticipate in ppml, which means its really it the same small > group of people/companies that determine ARIN policies and that has been > my suspision all along. > > --- > William Leibzon > Elan Networks > william at elan.net > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Mon Nov 22 04:45:26 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:45:26 +0000 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > But in any case it does look a lot like only 5% - 6% of the ARIN > membership participates in elections - that is really really bad! I think it is really, really good! It indicates that the overwhelming majority of ARIN members view ARIN as a service organization that provides the service that they expect. --Michael Dillon P.S. typically the people within the member organizations who deal with ARIN are people in operations/administrative/engineering roles who deal with the allocation/assignment of IP addresses within their organization. We do not typically have representation from the people who deal with regulatory issues which may be a good thing because those people will be heavily FCC focussed. Of course it can also be a bad thing because it means that we don't get as much input from the "strategic thinking" level of the member organizations. From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Nov 22 15:31:55 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:31:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: Here are the voter statistics from the last two Board and Advisory Council elections: 2004 Board/AC Voting: Total Confirmed Voters: 134 2003 Board/AC Voting: Total Confirmed Voters: 97 As Owen pointed out, each voter may vote for as many candidates as desired, up to the number of open seats. If anyone has practical suggestions for increasing voter participation, we would welcome your input. Please send them to memsvcs at arin.net. Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:20 PM To: Andrew Dul Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Andrew Dul wrote: > I'd of course like to see more people to participate in the process. > However ARIN currently has over 2100 members and unfortunately from my > reading of the election results only about 100 organizations even bothered > to vote in the election. It is more than just candidates, IMO. http://www.arin.net/announcements/20041105.html Total Votes Cast for BoT: 259 Total Votes Cast for AC: 588 Each organization voted for 2 BoT and 5 AC sits, so it should be that the number of organizations that participated was: based on BoT votes - 259/2 = 129.5 based on AC votes - 588/5 = 117.6 I'm sorry but am I the only one that things something is wrong? The resulting number was supposed to be integer and I was expecting numbers to be the same! Here is how it looked for previous election: http://www.arin.net/announcements/20031107.html Total Votes Cast for BoT: 184 Total Votes Cast for AC: 644 Each organization voted for 2 BoT and 8 AC sits, so it should be that the number of organizations that participated was: based on BoT votes - 184/2 = 92 based on AC votes - 644/8 = 80.5 Can somebody explain why the difference and how many ARIN members really participated in each of these elections? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- But in any case it does look a lot like only 5% - 6% of the ARIN membership participates in elections - that is really really bad! I think for next year ARIN needs to do somekind of voter-drive, perhaps an extra /20 for every member that votes will help :) And based on the number I suspect that those who voted are pretty much the same group that participates in ARIN members meeting or otherwise actively pacticipate in ppml, which means its really it the same small group of people/companies that determine ARIN policies and that has been my suspision all along. --- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From william at elan.net Mon Nov 22 16:41:12 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Member Services wrote: > Here are the voter statistics from the last two Board and Advisory Council > elections: > > 2004 Board/AC Voting: > Total Confirmed Voters: 134 > > 2003 Board/AC Voting: > Total Confirmed Voters: 97 Those are about 5% highier from my calculations based on BoT votes. Pretty much same picture - only 6% of ARIN membership participates in elections. > If anyone has practical suggestions for increasing voter participation, we > would welcome your input. Please send them to memsvcs at arin.net. I have couple suggestions, but that will involve spending some money though: 1. Send by postal mail a package about ARIN's activities to members once/year about week or two before the elections (possibly before member's meeting that preceeds it) which would include report of ARIN's activities for past year, list of new policies that were approved by BoT, summary of policies under discussion and information about candidates for ARIN's elections with reminder about participating in those elections. 2. Provide some kind of incentive for those that do participate - after they confirm their vote, they get some kind of free coupon. Examples of what these coupons maybe for: 1. A 25% discount on fee for one person to participate at NANOG meeting 2. A discount coupon from one of the equipment vendors (might not be good since this would be perceived as advertisment for one specific vendor where as ARIN has always kept neutral position) 3. A gift certificate for free coffee at Starbucks Or something else that would be of interest to people who run ISPs. (And I'm sure people on this list would have more ideas about that) -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From john at chagres.net Mon Nov 22 16:26:02 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:26:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> > I have couple suggestions, but that will involve spending some money though: ARIN has money..... so not an issue > 1. Send by postal mail a package about ARIN's activities to members once/year > about week or two before the elections (possibly before member's meeting > that preceeds it) which would include report of ARIN's activities for > past year, list of new policies that were approved by BoT, summary of > policies under discussion and information about candidates for ARIN's > elections with reminder about participating in those elections. You mean like an "Annual Report" ala what RIPE has done in the past ?? I think this would be a GREAT THING!!! > 2. Provide some kind of incentive for those that do participate - after > they confirm their vote, they get some kind of free coupon. Examples > of what these coupons maybe for: Getting people to participate is difficult. There has to be "value" for them to participate. THis is either prevention of a bad thing ,or promotion of a good thing, either have value. I think the first thing ARIN should do is to actively have a survey of the membership. Not some web form thingy, but hire a company that will call each and every member and ask them a series of short and specific questions. THen report those results to the membership and to the public. We used to do this for customer sat checks once a quarter when I lived in Silly Valley. From woody at pch.net Mon Nov 22 19:51:11 2004 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:51:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, John Brown CT wrote: > You mean like an "Annual Report" ala what RIPE has done in the past ?? > I think this would be a GREAT THING!!! APNIC does quite nice ones, as well. -Bill From randy at psg.com Mon Nov 22 20:10:49 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:10:49 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT References: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> Message-ID: <16802.36377.94119.117879@ran.psg.com> i understand the value of an annual report in terms of transparency. but would someone please explain to me how it will increase member participation? perhaps a bit more goal-orientation would be useful o what is it we're trying to achieve? wider representation? o what other audience needs to be reached? real normal human beings, aka end users? o what procedures do we have in place that makes it hard to do so? popularity contest elections among an in crowd? o what would appeal to some real users to cause them to want to spend their time helping guide arin? annual reports? not. many fine lunches and dinners? with this crowd? not. fame and fortune? not. so, what will actually entice folk to spend time on arin? randy From william at elan.net Mon Nov 22 20:41:07 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, John Brown CT wrote: > You mean like an "Annual Report" ala what RIPE has done in the past ?? > I think this would be a GREAT THING!!! I'm not familiar with what RIPE does but "Annual Report" sounds just about right for what I was talking about. And if its publication is done at about the time of election it should cause more ARIN members to get involved. > Getting people to participate is difficult. There has to be "value" for > them to participate. THis is either prevention of a bad thing ,or > promotion of a good thing, either have value. Not everything is about immediatly value, there is such as thing as civil duty and many people who vote in elections do it because they believe its the basis of democracy and not necessarily because they have extremely strong view one way or the other. > I think the first thing ARIN should do is to actively have a survey of > the membership. Not some web form thingy, but hire a company that will > call each and every member and ask them a series of short and specific > questions. THen report those results to the membership and to the public. Its somewhat difficult to word the survey appropriatly, short and specific questions (especially multiple-choice and yes/no) do produce results but they may not allow to ask questions that will help to understand what needs to be done for membership to be more involved in ARIN activities and if you ask direct question like "What arin need to do to get more participation of membership in the election process and in other ARIN activities?" then the answers will vary greatly from one person to the other and it would be difficult to summarize them. Nevertheless doing survey is good idea and at the very least is better then not doing it and making a guess on what membership wants based on few people who are active on this list. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From john at chagres.net Mon Nov 22 20:21:02 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:21:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <16802.36377.94119.117879@ran.psg.com> References: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> <16802.36377.94119.117879@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <41A2907E.9080001@chagres.net> Randy Bush wrote: > i understand the value of an annual report in terms of transparency. > but would someone please explain to me how it will increase member > participation? people tend to read paper things more than electronic things. From randy at psg.com Mon Nov 22 20:23:32 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:23:32 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT References: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> <16802.36377.94119.117879@ran.psg.com> <41A2907E.9080001@chagres.net> Message-ID: <16802.37140.793692.300879@ran.psg.com> >> i understand the value of an annual report in terms of transparency. >> but would someone please explain to me how it will increase member >> participation? > people tend to read paper things more than electronic things. ahh, i did not realize our goal was increasing literacy randy From hannigan at verisign.com Mon Nov 22 23:57:34 2004 From: hannigan at verisign.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:57:34 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69188D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:41 PM > To: John Brown CT > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, John Brown CT wrote: > > > You mean like an "Annual Report" ala what RIPE has done in > the past ?? > > I think this would be a GREAT THING!!! > > I'm not familiar with what RIPE does but "Annual Report" sounds just > about right for what I was talking about. And if its publication is > done at about the time of election it should cause more ARIN members > to get involved. This is the Internet. If you don't want to read it online, you're probably not going to vote in an ARIN election. When I want to know what's going on related to the Internet, I jack in. I think most others that are interested in governance do as well. -M< From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Nov 23 05:25:26 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:25:26 +0000 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I think the first thing ARIN should do is to actively have a survey of > > the membership. Not some web form thingy, but hire a company that will > > call each and every member and ask them a series of short and specific > > questions. THen report those results to the membership and to the public. This is a good idea. > "What arin need to do to get more > participation of membership in the election process and in other ARIN > activities?" But that question is absolute poison. We should not be having a metadiscussion with members in the survey. Instead, the survey should be all about the actual purpose of ARIN, the work that ARIN does or could do, and the issues that members see on the horizon. If this survey results in ongoing member participation, then that is a nice side effect but not the main purpose of the survey. The survey itself is a form of participation/communication which can be used to guide the activities of ARIN, the AC and the PPML. To encourage ongoing participation, we would need to provide a justification for member company management to appoint someone to work on ARIN issues within the member company. Nowadays, IP addressing is simply a technical admin task within companies and is not well connected with the strategic and policymaking roles within member companies. This is the root of the problem. --Michael Dillon From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 06:46:52 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:46:52 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69188D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69188D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <41A3232C.3060009@chagres.net> > This is the Internet. If you don't want to read it online, you're > probably not going to vote in an ARIN election. When I want to know > what's going on related to the Internet, I jack in. I think most others > that are interested in governance do as well. which is why printed newspapers are going out of business in record number. not. From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 06:53:15 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:53:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <16802.37140.793692.300879@ran.psg.com> References: <41A2596A.2080808@chagres.net> <16802.36377.94119.117879@ran.psg.com> <41A2907E.9080001@chagres.net> <16802.37140.793692.300879@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <41A324AB.6000507@chagres.net> > > ahh, i did not realize our goal was increasing literacy increased literacy seems to increase knowledge and participation in events From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 09:03:55 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:03:55 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <87oehor7z5.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> References: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69188D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <41A3232C.3060009@chagres.net> <87oehor7z5.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> Message-ID: <41A3434B.30102@chagres.net> > The general public buys newspapers and is not representative of > serious Internet backbone geeks. I can count on the fingers of both > hands the number of times I've bought a newspaper in the past year, > and half of those times I was buying it because I needed packing > material or kitchen table protection for a messy project. In the > context of my peer group here, I'm sure I'm not unusual. > > That said, I do read annual reports when they're sent to me, and > there's something to be said for well-produced glossy material - it > makes better eye candy than a web page, and no dancing bologna, music, > or flash annoyances (not that ARIN has any of these now). So I don't > necessarily agree with either Marty or John here. my point, is that budgets are normally set by backbone geeks, but instead by their managment. thus i postulate that more involvement could be had if there was budget to participate (time or money or both, your choice). thus helping managment see (read, touch, point to, etc) the value of orgs like ARIN could help them budget for involvement. its called marketing and perception. we, geeks, don't like marketing and thus cause our own "limiting", sometimes this is good, sometimes its not. From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Tue Nov 23 10:16:56 2004 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E.Seastrom) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:16:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <41A3434B.30102@chagres.net> (John Brown's message of "Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:03:55 -0700") References: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69188D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <41A3232C.3060009@chagres.net> <87oehor7z5.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> <41A3434B.30102@chagres.net> Message-ID: <874qjgr3x3.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com> John Brown CT writes: >> The general public buys newspapers and is not representative of >> serious Internet backbone geeks. I can count on the fingers of both >> hands the number of times I've bought a newspaper in the past year, >> and half of those times I was buying it because I needed packing >> material or kitchen table protection for a messy project. In the >> context of my peer group here, I'm sure I'm not unusual. >> That said, I do read annual reports when they're sent to me, and >> there's something to be said for well-produced glossy material - it >> makes better eye candy than a web page, and no dancing bologna, music, >> or flash annoyances (not that ARIN has any of these now). So I don't >> necessarily agree with either Marty or John here. > > my point, is that budgets are normally set by backbone geeks, but > instead by their managment. thus i postulate that more involvement > could be had if there was budget to participate (time or money or > both, your choice). thus helping managment see (read, touch, point > to, etc) the value of orgs like ARIN could help them budget for > involvement. Under those circumstances, since we actually want to reach the bosses of our contact folks (both admin and tech), printed annual reports ought to go out in packs of two or three - "one for you, one for your boss, (and optionally one for your boss' boss)). > its called marketing and perception. we, geeks, don't like marketing > and thus cause our own "limiting", sometimes this is good, sometimes > its not. My traditional problem with marketroids is that the enthusiasm and cheerleading is not backed up by a commensurate level of in-depth clue about what is being promoted and a commitment to scrupulous honesty. I do not anticipate a problem on either point in the current context. ---Rob From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 23 11:37:10 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:37:10 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B04E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> No offense...but I think we have gotten a little side tracked here. First of all...Literacy means the "ability to read or write." I do not believe the ARIN, BoT, AC or any of the mentioned in these strings of email are trying to actually increase "literacy". However, I think we can all agree that a larger participation with policy proposals and input in regards to IP addressing in general is desired. So putting aside all the entertaining banter.... the main question we all want answered is: "How do we encourage people to read policy, policy proposals and voice an opinion?" One suggestion I had provided at the Policy Bof was to take a policy in the "proposal stage" and make a short easy to understand summary of what the proposal means. Also make a list of how this proposal if put in active status would affect small, medium and large Internet using companies. If you make it very clear up front how such a proposal may effect a certain type of IP Address User....they are much more likely to provide input on ppml and at the conference because they are no longer having to do all the guess work of how this proposal could possibly affect their companies bottom line. Regards Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: John Brown CT [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:53 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: Member Services; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > ahh, i did not realize our goal was increasing literacy increased literacy seems to increase knowledge and participation in events From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 11:41:19 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:41:19 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B04E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B04E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <41A3682F.3020009@chagres.net> > "How do we encourage people to read policy, policy proposals and voice an > opinion?" ammend to say: How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, review/comment/participate on both existing and or new poilicy? Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer managment, but maybe related to people management at the policy orgs. From randy at psg.com Tue Nov 23 11:41:48 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:41:48 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B04E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <16803.26700.276626.26443@ran.psg.com> john brown's silly literacy bent aside, > So putting aside all the entertaining banter.... the main question we all > want answered is: "How do we encourage people to read policy, policy > proposals and voice an opinion?" not quite. i am most interested in gregory massel's (sp?) original issue, lack of participation by end users and others affected by arin's policies today and tomorrow. this requires true outreach, as few are members, know of arin, ... i suspect that, to reach them will require changes in internal election policy from the old boys' and girls' club, ... randy From Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Tue Nov 23 11:46:35 2004 From: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com (Scott.Shackelford at cox.com) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:46:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <635366E57FCC00439EBAED417383DC6407221E@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> ammend to say: How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, review/comment/participate on both existing and or new policy? And ultimately to become more active in voting which is where I thought this all started. Scott Shackelford IP Engineer/IP Administrator Cox Communications Office: 404-269-7312 IM: cypscott -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Brown CT Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:41 AM To: Azinger, Marla Cc: Randy Bush; Member Services; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > "How do we encourage people to read policy, policy proposals and voice an > opinion?" ammend to say: How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, review/comment/participate on both existing and or new poilicy? Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer managment, but maybe related to people management at the policy orgs. From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 11:50:25 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:50:25 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <635366E57FCC00439EBAED417383DC6407221E@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> References: <635366E57FCC00439EBAED417383DC6407221E@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Message-ID: <41A36A51.9070404@chagres.net> voteing is a subset of participate. review/comment should be encouraged prior to vote, imho Scott.Shackelford at cox.com wrote: > ammend to say: > > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new policy? > > And ultimately to become more active in voting which is where I thought > this all started. > > > Scott Shackelford > IP Engineer/IP Administrator > Cox Communications > Office: 404-269-7312 > IM: cypscott > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > Brown CT > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:41 AM > To: Azinger, Marla > Cc: Randy Bush; Member Services; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > >>"How do we encourage people to read policy, policy proposals and voice > > an > >>opinion?" > > > ammend to say: > > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new poilicy? > > Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer > managment, but maybe related to people management at the policy orgs. > > > From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Nov 23 11:51:07 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:51:07 +0000 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B04E@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: > One suggestion I had provided at the Policy Bof was to take a policy in the > "proposal stage" and make a short easy to understand summary of what the > proposal means. Also make a list of how this proposal if put in active > status would affect small, medium and large Internet using companies. If > you make it very clear up front how such a proposal may effect a certain > type of IP Address User....they are much more likely to provide input on > ppml and at the conference because they are no longer having to do all the > guess work of how this proposal could possibly affect their companies bottom > line. This is a good idea, however it is missing one essential element. How do you get people to read this summary? Can we say with certainty that the people on the ARIN members' mailing list are the right people to be asking for policy comments. In many companies people are expressly forbidden from making public comments unless that is part of their role within the business. Can we be certain that all of the ARIN member contacts have policymaking as part of their role? --Michael Dillon From Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Tue Nov 23 11:53:13 2004 From: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com (Scott.Shackelford at cox.com) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:53:13 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <635366E57FCC00439EBAED417383DC640FF8C4@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Agreed. "should be"...true. But then again most people, particularly those that are new to the community, don't understand the full impact of their vote. It takes a bit to get acclimated. Marla has a good idea about putting things into proper perspective relative to how a policy may impact any particular organization. It's just a matter of an effective way to execute such an idea. Scott Shackelford IP Engineer/IP Administrator Cox Communications Office: 404-269-7312 IM: cypscott -----Original Message----- From: John Brown CT [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:50 AM To: Shackelford, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) Cc: marla_azinger at eli.net; randy at psg.com; memsvcs at arin.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT voteing is a subset of participate. review/comment should be encouraged prior to vote, imho Scott.Shackelford at cox.com wrote: > ammend to say: > > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new policy? > > And ultimately to become more active in voting which is where I thought > this all started. > > > Scott Shackelford > IP Engineer/IP Administrator > Cox Communications > Office: 404-269-7312 > IM: cypscott > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > Brown CT > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:41 AM > To: Azinger, Marla > Cc: Randy Bush; Member Services; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > >>"How do we encourage people to read policy, policy proposals and voice > > an > >>opinion?" > > > ammend to say: > > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new poilicy? > > Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer > managment, but maybe related to people management at the policy orgs. > > > From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 11:56:15 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:56:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A36BAF.3070606@chagres.net> > Can we say with certainty that the people on the > ARIN members' mailing list are the right people > to be asking for policy comments. In many companies > people are expressly forbidden from making public > comments unless that is part of their role within > the business. Can we be certain that all of the > ARIN member contacts have policymaking as part > of their role? back to my point of "marketing" or Annual Report, etc getting the pointy hair boss types to make ARIN function a business priority and to fund it. with funding being either or both of TIME/Money From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 23 11:58:02 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:58:02 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D2627A2B@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> One thing I am certain of...we do not hold the power to "make" someone read. However, we do hold the power to "encourage" them to read and one way of doing this is through my suggestion below. Marla -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon at radianz.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:51 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > One suggestion I had provided at the Policy Bof was to take a policy in the > "proposal stage" and make a short easy to understand summary of what the > proposal means. Also make a list of how this proposal if put in active > status would affect small, medium and large Internet using companies. If > you make it very clear up front how such a proposal may effect a certain > type of IP Address User....they are much more likely to provide input on > ppml and at the conference because they are no longer having to do all the > guess work of how this proposal could possibly affect their companies bottom > line. This is a good idea, however it is missing one essential element. How do you get people to read this summary? Can we say with certainty that the people on the ARIN members' mailing list are the right people to be asking for policy comments. In many companies people are expressly forbidden from making public comments unless that is part of their role within the business. Can we be certain that all of the ARIN member contacts have policymaking as part of their role? --Michael Dillon From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 12:03:04 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:03:04 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <635366E57FCC00439EBAED417383DC640FF8C4@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> References: <635366E57FCC00439EBAED417383DC640FF8C4@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Message-ID: <41A36D48.9000001@chagres.net> > their vote. It takes a bit to get acclimated. Marla has a good idea > about putting things into proper perspective relative to how a policy > may impact any particular organization. It's just a matter of an > effective way to execute such an idea. ok, so then maybe there needs to be a printed quarterly news letter sent to member contacts that has a section ala Marla's idea. 6 weeks before the "annual meeting" election info is printed, policies to be talked about at the annual meeting are printed, etc. mailed to member contacts (plural) the above should also be available via mail to "interested third parties" ala non-members that register with ARIN. From john at chagres.net Tue Nov 23 12:04:28 2004 From: john at chagres.net (John Brown CT) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:04:28 -0700 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D2627A2B@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> References: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D2627A2B@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <41A36D9C.70706@chagres.net> Azinger, Marla wrote: > One thing I am certain of...we do not hold the power to "make" someone read. > However, we do hold the power to "encourage" them to read and one way of > doing this is through my suggestion below. agreed. ARIN needs to communicate and as a product of that effort will encourage more participation. From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 23 12:10:58 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:10:58 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <41A3232C.3060009@chagres.net> References: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69188D@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn .com> <41A3232C.3060009@chagres.net> Message-ID: <2147483647.1101201058@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> > which is why printed newspapers are going out of business in record > number. not. The majority of newspaper readers are _NOT_ interested in internet governance. This is an absurd correlation. Yes, the average joe end-user probably reads a fair amount of stuff off-line. That does not mean that the average person interested in internet policy wants their internet policy information off-line. I think it is perfectly reasonable to send ARIN communications by email instead of by postal mail. There are significant cost savings to ARIN. It is unlikely someone who can be described as a stakeholder does not have an email address. It is unlikely that someone who can be described as a stakeholder does not read email. Further, in the end, there's just no way around the fact that decisions, in any organization, are made by those that show up. I don't think expecting someone to participate via internet as the ARIN form of "showing up" is unreasonable given that ARIN policy doesn't really affect anyone who doesn't use the internet. BTW, the primary reason newspapers are not going out of business is because people still commute. Commuters still want something to use to wall themselves off from the rest of the people on public transit. That sells newspapers. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 23 12:13:27 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:13:27 -0800 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D2627A2C@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> I believe it will actually lead people to participate more before the vote. People should and will be asked to stand up and state which position they support and why. With the summary and effects....they will have more to jog their brain with and know that their thoughts on the matter arnt way out in left field. Marla -----Original Message----- From: Hannigan, Martin [mailto:hannigan at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:07 AM To: 'marla_azinger at eli.net' Subject: RE: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:58 AM > To: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > > One thing I am certain of...we do not hold the power to > "make" someone read. > However, we do hold the power to "encourage" them to read and > one way of > doing this is through my suggestion below. > > Marla [ SNIP ] Marla, it is a good idea, but do you think it encourages people not to participate in the proposal process, rather, they can just wait until it's over and vote because it's easy? -M< From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Nov 23 12:20:26 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:20:26 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Process improvement for Repeat Proposals Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D209B04F@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Excuse me but I lost track of who made this statement: "Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer > managment, but maybe related to people management at the policy orgs". I heard many people agree with this sentiment above at the last meeting. We should keep in mint that this "people management" issue tends to get a little carried away at times in order to try and preserve the "spirit of unabashed input from all". However, there is another suggestion I put forward for a specific reoccuring experience. The experience I am referring to is when a proposal has come back to a conference for discussion and vote for a second, third or God help us all a fourth time. I suggest that when a proposal is coming back for a repeated time that a certain process is put in place. Here it is: 1. Results of the previouse conference discussion in regards to the re-visited proposal be placed up on a slide. This slide should include the summary of all discussion points and the results of voting on those discussion points. I also suggest that discussion points already voted on not be re-debated at the new conference since they have already been voted on. This way...we could move forward alot faster and not spend every conference discussing the same thing over again and not getting anywhere. That is my suggestion. I'm sure it can be added on or improved...but hopefully this starts the way to moving policy proposal a little faster towards its implementation or its abandonment. Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: John Brown CT [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:50 AM To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Cc: marla_azinger at eli.net; randy at psg.com; memsvcs at arin.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT voteing is a subset of participate. review/comment should be encouraged prior to vote, imho Scott.Shackelford at cox.com wrote: > ammend to say: > > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new policy? > > And ultimately to become more active in voting which is where I thought > this all started. > > > Scott Shackelford > IP Engineer/IP Administrator > Cox Communications > Office: 404-269-7312 > IM: cypscott > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of John > Brown CT > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:41 AM > To: Azinger, Marla > Cc: Randy Bush; Member Services; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > >>"How do we encourage people to read policy, policy proposals and voice > > an > >>opinion?" > > > ammend to say: > > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy, > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new poilicy? > > Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer > managment, but maybe related to people management at the policy orgs. > > > From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Nov 23 12:22:28 2004 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:22:28 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT In-Reply-To: <16803.26700.276626.26443@ran.psg.com> References: <16803.26700.276626.26443@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: At 11:41 -0500 11/23/04, Randy Bush wrote: >... i am most interested in gregory massel's (sp?) >original issue, lack of participation by end users and others >affected by arin's policies today and tomorrow. this requires >true outreach, as few are members, know of arin, ... i suspect >that, to reach them will require changes in internal election >policy from the old boys' and girls' club, ... I agree with this. It's not silence that's a problem, it's unbalanced silence that's the concern. If someone stood up a universally acceptable policy, is it beneficial to fill the airwaves with thousands of "me toos?" The marginal benefit of voicing an opinion for the sake of voicing an opinion drops off quite rapidly. I have reasons why I haven't been participating in ARIN discussions, even though I have had a few short discussions in hallways on issues. The reasons boil down to time and priorities. No matter what ARIN did as far as outreach would get me more involved - I know where ARIN is. If and when the times comes, I know what to do to be involved. As Randy echoes above - ARIN needs to make sure it is getting an appropriate balance in discussions, not getting more volume. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar I think my jabber client and SMS phone are talking about me behind my back. From hannigan at verisign.com Tue Nov 23 12:34:39 2004 From: hannigan at verisign.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:34:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT Message-ID: <07241BB00D6943429D073403834717CE69189B@dul1wnexm04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:11 PM > To: John Brown CT; Hannigan, Martin > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT > > > > which is why printed newspapers are going out of business in record > > number. not. > > The majority of newspaper readers are _NOT_ interested in internet > governance. > This is an absurd correlation. Not totally. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=ICANN http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=ITU http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Internet+governance%2 2 > > Yes, the average joe end-user probably reads a fair amount of stuff > off-line. > That does not mean that the average person interested in > internet policy > wants their internet policy information off-line.> I think the point, at least from my perspective, wasn't about the newspaper, or the corporate CIO. It was about the somewhat disenfranchised which is what Mr. Massell was getting at. Or so I thought. -M< From alan at futureperfect.co.za Thu Nov 25 04:45:08 2004 From: alan at futureperfect.co.za (Alan Levin) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:45:08 +0200 Subject: [ppml] Fwd: Internet Governance Message-ID: Hi, re: > From: Member Services > Date: 16 November 2004 20:54:41 GMT+02:00 > > Below are the e-mail addresses provided on the ITU list of sector > members for those representatives from current ARIN member > organizations. Please review the entire list for all countries within > the > ARIN region. There are other organizations on that list for whom you > may have contacts > and wish to include in your correspondence. > mortimer.hope at vodacom.co.za I spotted this and adapted Bills message (thanks Bill for cc'ing us) to Mortimer (who I have met at a local conference). I am not sure what to make of his response (below) but it appears that he is not aware of the ITU since he wants to pass on my email to his local telco people. I'm not sure what to make of this, but I suppose my post to afnog in this regard becomes relevant here too... > From: Alan Levin > Date: 18 November 2004 23:48:24 GMT+02:00 > To: afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Fwd: [afnog] Re: Request for input: The > WorkingGrouponInternetGovernance > > my 2c... > > In my past decade of experiences working with the people that > participate in this policy making activity: > some are often under-qualified and do it as part of 'the job', > some are often passionate and do it because they want to and they care > to. > > I do not mean that the former do not care about their career, the > concern is that their organisation may come before the open knowledge > and sharing intentions of the latter. There can be a good mix, the > concern I have is that only some are 'invited' to the ITU decision > making, anyone on this list can be involved in ICANN (and related RIR > and tld) decision making just if they want to. > here's the response I got from Mortimer... QED Begin forwarded message: > From: "Mortimer Hope" > Date: 22 November 2004 21:18:33 GMT+02:00 > To: "Alan Levin" > Subject: RE: Internet Governance > > Hi Alan > > Yes, I remember you and the short discussion we had about internet > telephony. > > I will pass this email on to the relevant people in Vodacom. > > Mortimer > > ________________________________ > > From: Alan Levin [mailto:alan at futureperfect.co.za] > Sent: Thu 2004/11/18 06:49 PM > To: Mortimer Hope > Cc: Gregory Massel > Subject: Internet Governance > > > > Dear Mortimer, > > Hope this email finds you well :) > > I am not sure if you remember me, we met at the futurex conference I > believe. I am adapting a message below that relates to a recent paper > by Dr Zhao of the ITU. > > I am writing as a member of the board of AfriNIC, the emerging African > regional registry and the board of the .za domain name authority. Both > these organisations use an open public process for electing > representatives from among a diverse slate of candidates. The AfriNIC > board is made up of 10 members of very diverse background and > experience, made up of two people from each area in Africa (N, E, S, W > and central). This process of the AfriNIC is in essence bottom-up > policy making in which those who must comply with policies and know > most about the impact of policy, advocate directly and indirectly in > its making. .za DNA board is selected by a Department of Communications > independent nominating committee. > > The process is not without flaw, but has been refined over the years in > which all RIRs have operated. Each at once the same in function, but > different as they reflect the individual regional reality in economics > and operations of massive and important communication infrastructure. > > No stakeholder is precluded from participation, governments alike. > Indeed, each stakeholder is encouraged to participate and has ample > opportunity through online and mulitiple face-to-face fora that travel > to various localities within the region. In addition, RIRs are > involved in educational outreach that is specific to the needs of its > region. This helps ensure that stakeholders are informed in all > matters related to the resources for which it is steward. > > This important segment of Internet governance and management is most > definitely NOT broken. It operates smoothly and efficiently and > corresponds to the highest ideals of open and fair administration of > these fundamental Internet resources. > > I urge you in your capacity as Sector Member of the ITU to encourage > collaboration within the existing RIR structure(s) to achieve > objectives that you feel are important for international > telecommunications. Assemble with the many other global stakeholders > and become a contributing part of this community. > > Please don't hesitate to contact me if this isn't making sense.... I do > realise it's a very complicated issue. > > Sincerely, > > > Alan --------------------------------------------- Alan Levin Tel: +27 21 409-7997 From owen at delong.com Fri Nov 26 02:43:01 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:43:01 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) In-Reply-To: <010b01c4d34e$2498ccc0$6701a8c0@ssprunk> References: <41A49863.2030107@greendragon.com> <1101369194.25013.72.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <1101370052.25013.78.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <41A59C9C.4050202@complicity.co.uk> <1101373185.25013.103.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <41A5BA3E.5000304@complicity.co.uk> <2147483647.1101376069@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <41A63E71.4000405@complicity.co.uk> <20041125205014.GA19593@srv01.cluenet.de> <010b01c4d34e$2498ccc0$6701a8c0@ssprunk> Message-ID: <2147483647.1101426181@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> Generally, I don't like to cross-post, but, this is definitely an ARIN policy issue, so, I'm sending it to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List as well (ppml at arin.net). While I think it is useful to discuss such issues on NANOG, the reality is that it is more useful to discuss them on PPML and I would like to encourage everyone participating in the discussion on NANOG to continue the discussion on the ARIN PPML. According to the ARIN policy document: 6.2.9.???? End site An end site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has a business relationship with a service provider that involves: 1. that service provider assigning address space to the end user 2. that service provider providing transit service for the end user to other sites 3. that service provider carrying the end user's traffic. 4. that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the end user's assignment As such, it appears to be a catch 22. If your organization has transit and PA space, apparently, as I read the policy, that would preclude you from qualifying as an LIR without spinning off a separate ORG to do so, then becoming a customer of that ORG. I suspect that the ARIN staff will be more reasonable about the application of this rule, but, that is just a suspicion. I think we definitely need to review v6 allocation policy and improve its consistency and ability to meet the needs of the community if v6 is to make real progress towards broad adoption. Owen --On Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:23 PM -0600 Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Thus spake "Daniel Roesen" >> And as this makes this whole 200-orgs constraint pathetic, there is >> an effort underway (or even already agreed upon?) at least in RIPE >> region, to just scratch it completely. >> >> So it boils down to: >> >> - you're a LIR (== you pay) >> - you will assign to other "organizations". >> Definition of "organization" is up to you. > > And you cannot be an "end site", which I would expect ARIN staffers to > interpret as any organization which doesn't sell transit to the public. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart > CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with > K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin > > -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Nov 26 04:31:59 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:31:59 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) In-Reply-To: <76A94B8C-3F89-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com> References: <41A49863.2030107@greendragon.com> <1101369194.25013.72.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <1101370052.25013.78.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <41A59C9C.4050202@complicity.co.uk> <1101373185.25013.103.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <41A5BA3E.5000304@complicity.co.uk> <2147483647.1101376069@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <41A63E71.4000405@complicity.co.uk> <20041125205014.GA19593@srv01.cluenet.de> <010b01c4d34e$2498ccc0$6701a8c0@ssprunk> <2147483647.1101426181@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <76A94B8C-3F89-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <2147483647.1101432719@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> > What you really want is PI assignments in IPv6, and you shouldn't be > changing the PA allocation rules or interpretation of these rules so you > can get this under the radar. > I'm not trying to get anything under the RADAR. Yes, I want to see us modify the policy to cover allocations and assignments, much as the current IPv4 policy does. However, I'm not suggesting it under the RADAR, I've been quite up front about it. ULA is an attempt to slide something under the radar, and, that is one of the reasons I have opposed it. > Tony Hain said he's going to ask for a BoF at the next IETF meeting on > somewhat aggregatable PI space in IPv6, I suggest the RIRs don't take any > action in this area until then. > Even if the RIRs started working on a draft now (which I think is a good idea), it would be at least a year before anything real happened on it. As such, I think there will be no difficulty incorporating the output of Tony's BOF into such policy well before it was adopted. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: