From matt at conundrum.com  Tue Nov  1 08:50:37 2011
From: matt at conundrum.com (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:50:37 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee structures for ARIN
In-Reply-To: <E1895EC4-7BB0-4A0A-B048-8D93600D3AAC@delong.com>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1110070930490.18595@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<CAP-guGUhmRjg=VbrVGxvTyj14x=5du85UhQp+O+z+Q7dc6i=6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1C3526E9-781E-444C-8010-D96AEBA85D78@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWsxESB9LRre__=t8PHPdxG0Fz8_ohk6BfknQ0HAr-SDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2AE7862-E869-4C3F-AA79-1E387A19B3C0@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXDspCgchg0TDn0grOhWnfgCjk+9TMnKqyk8d3O5_QkVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<67A9C7EA-E184-4AD2-A816-1614A0E18A45@arin.net>
	<C6CE0E32-944B-402E-9BEC-B617F30EF6C8@delong.com>
	<B120CA37-11C3-45A6-A894-330A84F614E2@arin.net>
	<6B4A2F87-0E3C-4072-91AC-295FEF528418@delong.com>
	<55AB89C0-271B-412C-A72C-DC4C70873FDF@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVJ6=WAVyi95NqC5utXFWDmU_2yfyHkTF7Y3i-hL_MQ=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGUt9z=P+P-KwvzFJeTcaqRQ_3OQi2W3fzWPwA_r42bUEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2DF1C45-B112-46FF-A507-DF06FAA65B5F@arin.net>
	<4EAAC79C.1020307@brightok.net>
	<C78DC6E1-B125-412C-91AF-BF5702BF05E4@arin.net>
	<4EAACDF6.5020706@brightok.net>
	<CAP-guGX985aJzLcuqSYw-KQHGkoX34cUvR_-Jy6NAnd2UCiriA@mail.gmail.com>!
	! <B3C240D6-8691-44C1-9F51-8E9D099AD848@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVFC_6YfxFwVdK3FAMqGnN0cEUrnSGpicfO0dQA+-izUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B15108D-AA0C-4942-9D27-AD696927A0C1@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU++ERfrkxku3PrQrRk3nJJncq53Y-w4qrbNMBoPfgJhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4668DE56-E026-451F-9ACA-209DC992DCAA@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWy4ie1r_308qruN5HX2qkLY2Gb7bN4ZWfnehcqhzb_1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1895EC4-7BB0-4A0A-B048-8D93600D3AAC@delong.com>
Message-ID: <B0F4A8E8-AC13-47F7-A85B-7B5A8BCC293C@conundrum.com>


On 2011-10-31, at 06:31, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On Oct 30, 2011, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding here how an NS record covering
>>> a /32 is going to consume more than an NS record covering a /48.
>>> 
>>> Can you please explain that one to me?
>> 
>> Which record would say is requested more frequently?
>> 
>> com NS or delong.com NS?
> 
> Depends on the server. My nameservers answer many more queries for
> DELONG.COM. I'm guessing that the GTLD-SERVERS also answer more
> queries for DELONG.COM (since they really shouldn't see queries for
> COM NS most of the time). OTOH, the ROOT-SERVERS probably see
> far more queries for COM and almost none for DELONG.COM.

You're both wrong, since the analogy is poorly constructed. :)

The NS records for a /32 and a /48 delegated by ARIN are at the same level in the tree, whereas DELONG.COM and .COM are not.  The better question is, what is more often queried, DELONG.COM or POUNSETT.COM?  And that depends entirely on the use of the zones.   Likewise, whether ARIN receives queries more often for the /32 or the /48 depends on the uses of the net blocks.  And since both are cached identically, the chances that any difference has a measurable difference in impact on ARIN's servers is small enough to be not worth discussion.





From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Nov  1 10:02:15 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:02:15 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>

The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many 
comments.

There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 
in opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.

There was discussion about removing the request for the NRO to clarify 
the RFC 2860 issue.  There was support for this, however with the low 
level of comments, I would find it difficult to call it a clear 
consensus to make such a change.  Additionally, this didn't seem to be a 
show stopper for those that made the comments.

If you wish to comment during this last call, please do so ASAP.

Thanks

On 10/19/11 14:12 CDT, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to
> send the following draft policy to last call:
>
> ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4
> allocation mechanisms by the IANA
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-9 will
> expire on 2 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their
> last call review.
>
> The draft policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  1 11:07:59 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:07:59 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow. ?There haven't been many
> comments.
>
> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.

Hi David,

What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
addresses were expected to be returned?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov  1 11:07:41 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:07:41 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
	post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <BB4C7983-1838-488D-ADA4-0BCDD80B57ED@delong.com>

The language to the NRO has been rendered moot by other events.

It should be removed because the circumstances which necessitated its
inclusion have been resolved. It is no longer relevant.

Owen

On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:02 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many comments.
> 
> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
> 
> There was discussion about removing the request for the NRO to clarify the RFC 2860 issue.  There was support for this, however with the low level of comments, I would find it difficult to call it a clear consensus to make such a change.  Additionally, this didn't seem to be a show stopper for those that made the comments.
> 
> If you wish to comment during this last call, please do so ASAP.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On 10/19/11 14:12 CDT, ARIN wrote:
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to
>> send the following draft policy to last call:
>> 
>> ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4
>> allocation mechanisms by the IANA
>> 
>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-9 will
>> expire on 2 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their
>> last call review.
>> 
>> The draft policy text is below and available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>> 
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Communications and Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota	
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov  1 11:14:54 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:14:54 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
	post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D769EE29-8CD1-4B82-BE8E-EEA11E572595@delong.com>

You are conflating two different Global Policy Proposals.

Owen

On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many
>> comments.
>> 
>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
>> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
> consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
> expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
> told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
> addresses were expected to be returned?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Nov  1 11:57:56 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:57:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <BB4C7983-1838-488D-ADA4-0BCDD80B57ED@delong.com>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<BB4C7983-1838-488D-ADA4-0BCDD80B57ED@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4EB01704.9070203@umn.edu>

Owen,

I don't disagree.  However, I don't remember anyone getting up at the 
microphone and saying that at the PPM. I thought someone was going to, I 
was planing to have a question regarding removing that language put to 
the floor at the PPM, but it didn't come up that I remember.  Then I 
also don't feel that two people making the comment in last call 
constitutes a consensus to make that change, especially since it wasn't 
also talked about in the PPM.

So, if you support the idea of returning to the original language 
without the request to the NRO, which got added, please speak up.  I'm 
happy to suggest to the AC we remove it, but I would like to see some 
semblance of a consensus to do that.  And in my opinion two people ain't 
a consensus.

Thanks.

On 11/1/11 10:07 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote:
> The language to the NRO has been rendered moot by other events.
>
> It should be removed because the circumstances which necessitated its
> inclusion have been resolved. It is no longer relevant.
>
> Owen
>
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:02 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>
>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many comments.
>>
>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
>>
>> There was discussion about removing the request for the NRO to clarify the RFC 2860 issue.  There was support for this, however with the low level of comments, I would find it difficult to call it a clear consensus to make such a change.  Additionally, this didn't seem to be a show stopper for those that made the comments.
>>
>> If you wish to comment during this last call, please do so ASAP.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On 10/19/11 14:12 CDT, ARIN wrote:
>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to
>>> send the following draft policy to last call:
>>>
>>> ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4
>>> allocation mechanisms by the IANA
>>>
>>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
>>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-9 will
>>> expire on 2 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their
>>> last call review.
>>>
>>> The draft policy text is below and available at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>>>
>>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Communications and Member Services
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking&  Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota	
>> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  1 12:25:08 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 19:25:08 +0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <BB4C7983-1838-488D-ADA4-0BCDD80B57ED@delong.com>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<BB4C7983-1838-488D-ADA4-0BCDD80B57ED@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjB6GydsLb6syNYDcvHsT7ZqHLunHt2uCXOSef2qqgiEw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> The language to the NRO has been rendered moot by other events.
>
> It should be removed because the circumstances which necessitated its
> inclusion have been resolved. It is no longer relevant.


I would be happy with its removal.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel


From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Nov  1 12:34:34 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:34:34 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>



On 11/1/11 10:07 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many
>> comments.
>>
>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
>> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
>
> Hi David,
>
> What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
> consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
> expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
> told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
> addresses were expected to be returned?

The following is entirely my personal interpretation of the events, from 
my discussion with people from other regions;

I believe the biggest issue for other regions wasn't that we couldn't 
support mandatory return in global proposal that was ARIN-2009-3, but 
was a procedural objection.  That we changed the text of our proposal 
rather then do a strait up-down vote on the text presented to us.  In 
other words, they wanted us to vote the original proposal down and 
submit another new proposal. That is not what I believe, but my 
interruption of what others believe was our correct course of action in 
the situation.

Then the objection to ARIN-2010-10 was that it included language about 
transfers and seemed to be a winner take all of the pool, the first one 
with need seemed to get the whole pool.  I believe if we submitted our 
change version of ARIN-2009-3 as a new proposal it might have received a 
different fate that  ARIN-2010-10, but that is Monday morning 
quarterbacking, and is not completely fair.

This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the 
implementation guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 
issue, especially the objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes 
our objection the the original ARIN-2009-3 text.

In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to 
IANA" is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy 
recognizes.  I haven't hid my opinion on the matter and made a public 
response to the question in open mic at the PPM.

By the way the guidance to the AC from the floor of the PPM on this 
proposal as written was 47 in favor and 2 against.  That seems to be to 
be a clear consensus for the policy.

-----
Rationale from ARIN-2011-9:

The policy provides a mechanism for the ongoing distribution of
IPv4 address space, while removing the areas that have been
problematic in previous attemts at this proposal. The proposal:

- Permits regional variation in runout policy amongst RIRs to
be accounted for in the distribution of the Recovered IPv4 Pool

- Prevents the possibility of a single RIR being eligible to
be allocated the entire Recovered IPv4 Pool in the first
(and perhaps only) allocation period

- Removes two areas of policy that have failed to reach
agreement in previous attempts at this proposal:

- How addresses should be placed in the Recovered IPv4 Pool
- References to how transfers should or should not take
place

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  1 13:24:13 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:24:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5O4qmCE3bDax_PkMCXAkrCqgWBHCxSihyk_z_obnztkTw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/11 10:07 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow. ?There haven't been many
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
>>> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
>> consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
>> expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
>> told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
>> addresses were expected to be returned?
>
> The following is entirely my personal interpretation of the events, from my
> discussion with people from other regions;
>
> I believe the biggest issue for other regions wasn't that we couldn't
> support mandatory return in global proposal that was ARIN-2009-3, but was a
> procedural objection. ?That we changed the text of our proposal rather then
> do a strait up-down vote on the text presented to us. ?In other words, they
> wanted us to vote the original proposal down and submit another new
> proposal. That is not what I believe, but my interruption of what others
> believe was our correct course of action in the situation.
>
> Then the objection to ARIN-2010-10 was that it included language about
> transfers and seemed to be a winner take all of the pool, the first one with
> need seemed to get the whole pool. ?I believe if we submitted our change
> version of ARIN-2009-3 as a new proposal it might have received a different
> fate that ?ARIN-2010-10, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking, and is
> not completely fair.

I think you may not have actually read the proposal then. Unlike this
proposal, it was entirely needs based. If you had more than N, you got
nothing. If you qualifed, you got an equal part. Im not sure how any
RIR with addresses in their pool for years to come would have any
complaint, but they did find them. This proposal is a simple tossing
of the political football. That's already been well established and
acknowledged by most.

>
> This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the implementation
> guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 issue, especially the
> objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes our objection the the
> original ARIN-2009-3 text.
>
> In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to IANA"
> is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy recognizes.

All this proposal does is insure that no addresses ever get returned
from the ARIN pool unless the ARIN BoT and staff act unilaterally,
which is the undesired side effect of adopting this proposal. BTW, you
didn't mention that the previous proposal was adopted with
_overwhelming_ support in this community, something that we're unable
to say about this proposal.

At best, the change in the rationale altered the meaning of the
proposal to begin with and invalidates it as a violation of the global
pdp, but we'll see how that works out.


Best,

-M<


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  1 13:29:30 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:29:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGV8_j6MBYCvEKKGi+4Ht00T8F-hsftK3wq8XX0fcxUYwA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I believe the biggest issue for other regions wasn't that we couldn't
> support mandatory return in global proposal that was ARIN-2009-3, but was a
> procedural objection. ?That we changed the text of our proposal rather then
> do a strait up-down vote on the text presented to us. ?In other words, they
> wanted us to vote the original proposal down and submit another new
> proposal. That is not what I believe, but my interruption of what others
> believe was our correct course of action in the situation.
>
> Then the objection to ARIN-2010-10 was that it included language about
> transfers and seemed to be a winner take all of the pool, the first one with
> need seemed to get the whole pool. ?I believe if we submitted our change
> version of ARIN-2009-3 as a new proposal it might have received a different
> fate that ?ARIN-2010-10, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking, and is
> not completely fair.
>
> This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the implementation
> guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 issue, especially the
> objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes our objection the the
> original ARIN-2009-3 text.
>
> In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to IANA"
> is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy recognizes. ?I
> haven't hid my opinion on the matter and made a public response to the
> question in open mic at the PPM.

Hi David,

Then my view is the same as it was for this draft's predecessors: so
long as we all understand that pending further policy development, the
IP addresses we expect ARIN to return to IANA is a null set, I am in
favor of advancing this draft. Should staff understand this draft to
have a contrary impact then I am opposed.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Nov  1 14:18:16 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:18:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5O4qmCE3bDax_PkMCXAkrCqgWBHCxSihyk_z_obnztkTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5O4qmCE3bDax_PkMCXAkrCqgWBHCxSihyk_z_obnztkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EB037E8.3060805@umn.edu>



On 11/1/11 12:24 CDT, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/11 10:07 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many
>>>> comments.
>>>>
>>>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
>>>> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
>>> consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
>>> expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
>>> told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
>>> addresses were expected to be returned?
>>
>> The following is entirely my personal interpretation of the events, from my
>> discussion with people from other regions;
>>
>> I believe the biggest issue for other regions wasn't that we couldn't
>> support mandatory return in global proposal that was ARIN-2009-3, but was a
>> procedural objection.  That we changed the text of our proposal rather then
>> do a strait up-down vote on the text presented to us.  In other words, they
>> wanted us to vote the original proposal down and submit another new
>> proposal. That is not what I believe, but my interruption of what others
>> believe was our correct course of action in the situation.
>>
>> Then the objection to ARIN-2010-10 was that it included language about
>> transfers and seemed to be a winner take all of the pool, the first one with
>> need seemed to get the whole pool.  I believe if we submitted our change
>> version of ARIN-2009-3 as a new proposal it might have received a different
>> fate that  ARIN-2010-10, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking, and is
>> not completely fair.
>
> I think you may not have actually read the proposal then. Unlike this
> proposal, it was entirely needs based. If you had more than N, you got
> nothing. If you qualifed, you got an equal part. Im not sure how any
> RIR with addresses in their pool for years to come would have any
> complaint, but they did find them. This proposal is a simple tossing
> of the political football. That's already been well established and
> acknowledged by most.

I thought I was asked about what changed in the opinion of other 
regions.  I was trying to communicate what I heard as the objections of 
others.

>> This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the implementation
>> guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 issue, especially the
>> objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes our objection the the
>> original ARIN-2009-3 text.
>>
>> In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to IANA"
>> is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy recognizes.
>
> All this proposal does is insure that no addresses ever get returned
> from the ARIN pool unless the ARIN BoT and staff act unilaterally,
> which is the undesired side effect of adopting this proposal. BTW, you
> didn't mention that the previous proposal was adopted with
> _overwhelming_ support in this community, something that we're unable
> to say about this proposal.

Yes ARIN-2010-10 did receive overwhelming support in the ARIN Region, 
but it utterly failed in all the other regions that bothered to take it 
up, a couple decided to drop it simply because it had already been 
dropped in other regions.

Not only does this policy seem to have consensus in this region, but it 
has been approved, or has reached consensus and on its way to being 
approved, in all of the other regions too.  Which is a requirement of a 
Global Policy.

> At best, the change in the rationale altered the meaning of the
> proposal to begin with and invalidates it as a violation of the global
> pdp, but we'll see how that works out.

Actually, I'm fine with removing the change to the rationale, but I 
would like to see a valid consensus on the list for that, since it 
didn't come up at the PPM.   Should I count you in support of removing 
the change to the Rationale?  That could be inferred from your 
statement, but it doesn't clearly say that.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  1 14:48:12 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 18:48:12 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5O4qmCE3bDax_PkMCXAkrCqgWBHCxSihyk_z_obnztkTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5O4qmCE3bDax_PkMCXAkrCqgWBHCxSihyk_z_obnztkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9139B850-E43F-4000-BD85-2A9CBC57C8FA@arin.net>

On Nov 1, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> All this proposal does is insure that no addresses ever get returned
> from the ARIN pool unless the ARIN BoT and staff act unilaterally,
> which is the undesired side effect of adopting this proposal. 

I'm not sure that is an accurate characterization of draft policy 
ARIN-2011-9; you seem to be highlighting aspects of a different 
policy (ARIN-2011-6) which has already been adopted.

The present status today (because of the adoption of policy 2011-6)
is that address space returned to ARIN will not be returned to the 
global pool but will be made available for use in the region.  If 
ARIN-2011-9 is adopted, it would trigger the preemption clause that 
is in policy 2011-6 and once again allow the ARIN Board to make the 
determination regarding disposition of any returned address space. 
ARIN-2011-9 would also (if adopted in similar form by the other RIRs)
would establish a procedure at the IANA for handling of returned IPv4
address space.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From info at arin.net  Wed Nov  2 06:41:08 2011
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 06:41:08 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2011
In-Reply-To: <4E9F20CF.2030809@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20CF.2030809@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4EB11E44.2050903@arin.net>

> The AC abandoned ARIN-2011-13 and ARIN-prop-153. Anyone dissatisfied 
> with these decisions may initiate a petition. The petition to advance 
> ARIN-2011-13 would be the "Last Call Petition." The petition to 
> advance prop-153 would be the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to 
> begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft 
> meeting minutes are published.
The deadline for petitions is 9 November 2011.

The AC's draft minutes of their 14 October 2011 meeting are available
at:https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


On 10/19/11 3:11 PM, ARIN wrote:
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory
> Council (AC) held a meeting on 14 October 2011 and made decisions about
> several draft policies and proposals.
>
> The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be
> posted separately to last call):
>
>   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
>   ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers
>   ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for Post Exhaustion 
> IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
>   ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified 
> Transfer
>
> The following remain on the AC's docket:
>
>   ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement
>   ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers
>   ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months
>
> The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development 
> and evaluation:
>
>   ARIN-prop-157 Section 8.3 Simplification
>
> The AC abandoned the following:
>
>   ARIN-2011-13: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region
>   ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
>
> Regarding 2011-13 the AC provided the following statement, "Given the 
> overwhelming number of objections by the community to the policy text 
> as written, and the lack of demonstrated consensus in the community to 
> continue work in this area, the AC has abandoned this draft policy."
>
> And for prop-153 the AC stated, "Since ARIN-Prop-153 was in direct 
> conflict with ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from 
> Specified Transfer, that reached consensus at the PPM and has been 
> sent to last call, the AC has abandoned ARIN-Prop-153: Correct 
> Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3."
>
> The AC abandoned ARIN-2011-13 and ARIN-prop-153. Anyone dissatisfied 
> with these decisions may initiate a petition. The petition to advance 
> ARIN-2011-13 would be the "Last Call Petition." The petition to 
> advance prop-153 would be the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to 
> begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft 
> meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and 
> participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111102/8bcc2d8d/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Wed Nov  2 09:02:48 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:02:48 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for
 post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
In-Reply-To: <4EB037E8.3060805@umn.edu>
References: <4E9F2127.9060809@arin.net> <4EAFFBE7.3020704@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGXEy6UxKAjN5zOhFiof4LdMyREej1vrP30P-uBZk=PYVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB01F9A.4020205@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5O4qmCE3bDax_PkMCXAkrCqgWBHCxSihyk_z_obnztkTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB037E8.3060805@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MpOf3ga0kKE=79+GcG3QgrzMsmXP+Wa=+VCdvFFe1K-g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/11 12:24 CDT, Martin Hannigan wrote:

[ clip]

>
>>> This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the
>>> implementation
>>> guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 issue, especially
>>> the
>>> objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes our objection the the
>>> original ARIN-2009-3 text.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to
>>> IANA"
>>> is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy recognizes.
>>
>> All this proposal does is insure that no addresses ever get returned
>> from the ARIN pool unless the ARIN BoT and staff act unilaterally,
>> which is the undesired side effect of adopting this proposal. BTW, you
>> didn't mention that the previous proposal was adopted with
>> _overwhelming_ support in this community, something that we're unable
>> to say about this proposal.
>
> Yes ARIN-2010-10 did receive overwhelming support in the ARIN Region, but it
> utterly failed in all the other regions that bothered to take it up, a
> couple decided to drop it simply because it had already been dropped in
> other regions.

That would be incorrect. The authors opted to drop it in a few
regions, one region played politics with it and blocked it and
probably violated their own PDP in doing so and it did not gain
consensus in another.

>
>> At best, the change in the rationale altered the meaning of the
>> proposal to begin with and invalidates it as a violation of the global
>> pdp, but we'll see how that works out.
>
> Actually, I'm fine with removing the change to the rationale, but I would

Personally, I think that the damage has already been done and it's not
relevant at this point whether you remove it or not.

> like to see a valid consensus on the list for that, since it didn't come up
> at the PPM. ? Should I count you in support of removing the change to the
> Rationale? ?That could be inferred from your statement, but it doesn't
> clearly say that.


You can count me in support of good, solid, Internet numbering policy.
This would not be one.

Best,

-M<


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Nov  4 00:53:03 2011
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:53:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201111040453.pA44r3YX031113@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 61 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Nov  4 00:53:03 EDT 2011
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 21.31% |   13 | 35.68% |   203322 | jcurran at arin.net
 19.67% |   12 | 15.62% |    88988 | bill at herrin.us
 18.03% |   11 | 16.03% |    91368 | owen at delong.com
  9.84% |    6 |  6.74% |    38382 | jbates at brightok.net
  6.56% |    4 |  6.05% |    34477 | farmer at umn.edu
  6.56% |    4 |  5.40% |    30763 | jsw at inconcepts.biz
  6.56% |    4 |  5.07% |    28919 | mysidia at gmail.com
  3.28% |    2 |  2.77% |    15789 | hannigan at gmail.com
  1.64% |    1 |  2.22% |    12624 | info at arin.net
  1.64% |    1 |  1.26% |     7170 | matt at conundrum.com
  1.64% |    1 |  1.25% |     7130 | narten at us.ibm.com
  1.64% |    1 |  0.98% |     5574 | dogwallah at gmail.com
  1.64% |    1 |  0.94% |     5373 | josmon at rigozsaurus.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   61 |100.00% |   569879 | Total



From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Mon Nov  7 18:11:30 2011
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert Seastrom)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:11:30 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
Message-ID: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>


Hi everyone,

By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").

Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.

2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.

We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.

Thank you,

-r (Shepherd, 2011-1).




From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  7 18:36:10 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:36:10 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <74F7AB37-96EB-445B-BBEC-295F0A0E0E49@arin.net>

FYI - I've requested a refreshed staff and legal review for 2011-1;
you'll should have it by mid-week.

/John

On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Robert Seastrom wrote:

> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
> 
> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
> 
> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
> 
> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From german at apnic.net  Mon Nov  7 18:53:24 2011
From: german at apnic.net (German Valdez)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:53:24 +1000
Subject: [arin-ppml] APNIC EC endorses prop-096 - demonstrated needs
	requirement in transfer policy
References: <4EB75754.1080308@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <38306721-9977-4A56-9AC4-056815B18740@apnic.net>

Hi

FYI,  this might be useful for your current discussions

Regards

German Valdez
APNIC

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Srinivas Chendi <sunny at apnic.net>
> Subject: [sig-policy] APNIC EC Endorses Policy Decision from APNIC 32
> Date: 7 November 2011 1:58:12 PM AEST
> To: sig-policy at lists.apnic.net
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> APNIC EC Endorses Policy Decision from APNIC 32
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> A consensus policy decision from the APNIC 32 Policy SIG Meeting was
> endorsed by the Executive Council (EC) on Thursday, 3 November 2011.
> 
> The EC endorsed the following policy proposal:
> 
>     prop-096  Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer
>               policy after the final /8 phase
> 
> This is the final stage in the Policy Development Process before
> implementation.
> 
> The details of this policy proposal are available at:
> 
>     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096
> 
> 
> Implementation Timeline
> -----------------------
> 
> As APNIC is already distributing addresses from the 'final /8', this
> proposal is scheduled for immediate implementation on Monday, 21
> November 2011.
> 
> 
> Global Policy prop-069
> ----------------------
> 
> At the request of the APNIC Policy SIG Chairs, the EC acknowledged that
> prop-069, "Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to
> Regional Internet Registries" is superseded by prop-097, "Global Policy
> for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA". The EC
> passed a resolution that the proposal should be abandoned.
> 
> The details of this policy proposal are available at:
> 
>     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-069
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> APNIC Secretariat                                 secretariat at apnic.net
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)   Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia    Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD            http://www.apnic.net
> ________________________________________________________________________
>  * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/217abd23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1908 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/217abd23/attachment.p7s>

From bill at herrin.us  Mon Nov  7 18:56:45 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:56:45 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>

I hereby petition to advance an alternate version of draft policy
2011-1 to last call.

Policy draft:

8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients

In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may
be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR,
in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN
policies.

IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
/24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
recipient RIR.

4.2.1.5. Minimum allocation

In general, ARIN allocates /24 and larger IP address prefixes to ISPs.
If allocations smaller than /24 are needed, ISPs should request
address space from their upstream provider.

Strike 4.2.2.1 but retain its subsections.

4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24

The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from
their upstream ISP. This /24 allocation may have been provided by an
ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address
space. The organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of
one /24. For example, if an organization holds a smaller allocation,
such as a /28, from its upstream provider, the organization would not
meet the minimum utilization requirements of a /24.

4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return

ISPs receiving a new /24 may wish to renumber out of their previously
allocated space. In this case, an ISP must use the new /24 to renumber
out of that previously allocated block of address space and must
return the space to its upstream provider.

Strike 4.2.2.2 through 4.2.2.2.4.

4.3.2. Minimum assignment

The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is
a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should
contact their upstream provider


Petition statement:

The AC's draft 2011-1 may be found here:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html

I include by reference the AC's explanation of the draft's changes
from the version presented at the meeting, both of which may be found
at said URL.

When the community consented to the Advisory Council rewriting
proposal 2011-1 to eliminate ARIN-qualification of out-region
transfers of single /24's they clearly intended that to cover
eliminating the comparable restrictions on in-region transfers due to
section 4 of the NRPM. This petition seeks to advance a modified
version of the AC's draft 2011-1 which makes minimalist changes to the
NRPM as needed to correct that oversight.

If, as some members of the AC have asserted, the petition process has
parity with AC action at each step of the way and if, as John Curran
asserted there is no requirement for a draft which has been
expansively rewritten following a public meeting to be again presented
at a meeting then this petition will be allowed to proceed. If, on the
other hand, this petition is ruled out of order then someone on the AC
or working for ARIN has been a little loose with the truth.

I ask you to help place the ARIN Policy Development Process under a
microscope by joining this petition to advance a revised draft policy
2011-1 to last call. You may do so by posting the message "I support
this petition" including your name, organization and contact info to
this PPML mailing list as described at the bottom of
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html



William Herrin, speaking for myself. Contact info in sig below.


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 19:25:36 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:25:36 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OxtYCcpWLOwXuiE4TLvGtvbo5Tb4MNDYaR-PxcP+Ctkw@mail.gmail.com>

This needs work, but support.

I am curious about one thing. Where does ARIN derive its authority over
legacy addresses?

Not just legal blustering, a real codified reference.

Best,

Martin
On Nov 7, 2011 6:57 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> I hereby petition to advance an alternate version of draft policy
> 2011-1 to last call.
>
> Policy draft:
>
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
>
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may
> be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR,
> in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
> recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN
> policies.
>
> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
> recipient RIR.
>
> 4.2.1.5. Minimum allocation
>
> In general, ARIN allocates /24 and larger IP address prefixes to ISPs.
> If allocations smaller than /24 are needed, ISPs should request
> address space from their upstream provider.
>
> Strike 4.2.2.1 but retain its subsections.
>
> 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24
>
> The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from
> their upstream ISP. This /24 allocation may have been provided by an
> ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address
> space. The organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of
> one /24. For example, if an organization holds a smaller allocation,
> such as a /28, from its upstream provider, the organization would not
> meet the minimum utilization requirements of a /24.
>
> 4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return
>
> ISPs receiving a new /24 may wish to renumber out of their previously
> allocated space. In this case, an ISP must use the new /24 to renumber
> out of that previously allocated block of address space and must
> return the space to its upstream provider.
>
> Strike 4.2.2.2 through 4.2.2.2.4.
>
> 4.3.2. Minimum assignment
>
> The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is
> a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should
> contact their upstream provider
>
>
> Petition statement:
>
> The AC's draft 2011-1 may be found here:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
>
> I include by reference the AC's explanation of the draft's changes
> from the version presented at the meeting, both of which may be found
> at said URL.
>
> When the community consented to the Advisory Council rewriting
> proposal 2011-1 to eliminate ARIN-qualification of out-region
> transfers of single /24's they clearly intended that to cover
> eliminating the comparable restrictions on in-region transfers due to
> section 4 of the NRPM. This petition seeks to advance a modified
> version of the AC's draft 2011-1 which makes minimalist changes to the
> NRPM as needed to correct that oversight.
>
> If, as some members of the AC have asserted, the petition process has
> parity with AC action at each step of the way and if, as John Curran
> asserted there is no requirement for a draft which has been
> expansively rewritten following a public meeting to be again presented
> at a meeting then this petition will be allowed to proceed. If, on the
> other hand, this petition is ruled out of order then someone on the AC
> or working for ARIN has been a little loose with the truth.
>
> I ask you to help place the ARIN Policy Development Process under a
> microscope by joining this petition to advance a revised draft policy
> 2011-1 to last call. You may do so by posting the message "I support
> this petition" including your name, organization and contact info to
> this PPML mailing list as described at the bottom of
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
>
>
> William Herrin, speaking for myself. Contact info in sig below.
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111107/6fa2be2a/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  7 22:05:17 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:05:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5OxtYCcpWLOwXuiE4TLvGtvbo5Tb4MNDYaR-PxcP+Ctkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5OxtYCcpWLOwXuiE4TLvGtvbo5Tb4MNDYaR-PxcP+Ctkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9C415D8C-D119-49E1-95AB-20ED3235DEFF@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

This needs work, but support.

I am curious about one thing. Where does ARIN derive its authority over legacy addresses?

Not just legal blustering, a real codified reference.

Martin -

  ARIN assumed full responsibility for the Internet Protocol (IP) number assignments
  and related administrative tasks previously managed under the InterNIC program,
  and this specifically includes responsibility for the existing legacy assignments.
  As a result, users of IP numbers now have a voice in the policies by which they
  are allocated and managed (to the extent that they wish to exercise that voice in
  the policy process.)   There are quite a few references to this transition, e.g. NSF's
  press release here: <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>

  FYI - We are going to count your email as a statement of support for the petition;
  if you meant otherwise or change your mind, just send an appropriate message.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/aa7fd7c6/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 22:36:58 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:36:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <9C415D8C-D119-49E1-95AB-20ED3235DEFF@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5OxtYCcpWLOwXuiE4TLvGtvbo5Tb4MNDYaR-PxcP+Ctkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9C415D8C-D119-49E1-95AB-20ED3235DEFF@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MFOyOSZ9Kf=nmw6gnMWt4yPSK=JTmZ4ctm8NL+EgjiqQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:05 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> This needs work, but support.
>
> I am curious about one thing. Where does ARIN derive its authority over
> legacy addresses?
>
> Not just legal blustering, a real codified reference.
>
> Martin -
>
> ? ARIN assumed?full responsibility for the Internet Protocol (IP) number
> assignments
> ? and related administrative tasks previously managed under the InterNIC
> program,
> ? and?this specifically includes responsibility for the existing legacy
> assignments.
> ? As a?result,?users of IP numbers now have a voice in the policies
> by?which?they
> ? are?allocated and managed (to the extent that they wish to exercise that
> voice in
> ? the policy process.) ? There are quite a few references to this
> transition, e.g. NSF's
> ? press release here: <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>

This would make sense for numbers going forward. The release is clear
with respect to that. Kremens or Nortel would also not have not
happened as well, no?

> ? FYI - We are going to count your email as a statement of support for the
> petition;
> ? if you meant otherwise or change your mind, just send an appropriate
> message.


That would be my intent. Thanks.

Best,

-M<


From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  7 22:59:47 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:59:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MFOyOSZ9Kf=nmw6gnMWt4yPSK=JTmZ4ctm8NL+EgjiqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5OxtYCcpWLOwXuiE4TLvGtvbo5Tb4MNDYaR-PxcP+Ctkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9C415D8C-D119-49E1-95AB-20ED3235DEFF@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5MFOyOSZ9Kf=nmw6gnMWt4yPSK=JTmZ4ctm8NL+EgjiqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <10B90B43-6BD2-47E9-B27B-4C2331D4281E@arin.net>

On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:36 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> This would make sense for numbers going forward. The release is clear
> with respect to that. 

It makes sense that _all_ resource holders should be able to
participate in the development of the policies by which they 
are managed, rather than simply having the policies set by 
the US Government. This change was an essential component of
the transition of the Internet towards a commercially based, 
self-regulating entity. 

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 04:41:43 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:41:43 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>

Bill -
 
  Your petition must conform to the ARIN Policy Development Policy,
  and that does not provide for submission of an alternate version
  of the draft policy via the petition process.  It provides for 
  the petition of an "action taken by the Advisory Council".  The
  ARIN PDP may be found here: <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>

  Please indicate which Advisory Council action you are petitioning 
  so that the petition process may be initiated.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:56 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> I hereby petition to advance an alternate version of draft policy
> 2011-1 to last call.
> 
> Policy draft:
> 
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> 
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may
> be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR,
> in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
> recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN
> policies.
> 
> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
> recipient RIR.
> 
> 4.2.1.5. Minimum allocation
> 
> In general, ARIN allocates /24 and larger IP address prefixes to ISPs.
> If allocations smaller than /24 are needed, ISPs should request
> address space from their upstream provider.
> 
> Strike 4.2.2.1 but retain its subsections.
> 
> 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24
> 
> The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from
> their upstream ISP. This /24 allocation may have been provided by an
> ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address
> space. The organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of
> one /24. For example, if an organization holds a smaller allocation,
> such as a /28, from its upstream provider, the organization would not
> meet the minimum utilization requirements of a /24.
> 
> 4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return
> 
> ISPs receiving a new /24 may wish to renumber out of their previously
> allocated space. In this case, an ISP must use the new /24 to renumber
> out of that previously allocated block of address space and must
> return the space to its upstream provider.
> 
> Strike 4.2.2.2 through 4.2.2.2.4.
> 
> 4.3.2. Minimum assignment
> 
> The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is
> a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should
> contact their upstream provider
> 
> 
> Petition statement:
> 
> The AC's draft 2011-1 may be found here:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
> 
> I include by reference the AC's explanation of the draft's changes
> from the version presented at the meeting, both of which may be found
> at said URL.
> 
> When the community consented to the Advisory Council rewriting
> proposal 2011-1 to eliminate ARIN-qualification of out-region
> transfers of single /24's they clearly intended that to cover
> eliminating the comparable restrictions on in-region transfers due to
> section 4 of the NRPM. This petition seeks to advance a modified
> version of the AC's draft 2011-1 which makes minimalist changes to the
> NRPM as needed to correct that oversight.
> 
> If, as some members of the AC have asserted, the petition process has
> parity with AC action at each step of the way and if, as John Curran
> asserted there is no requirement for a draft which has been
> expansively rewritten following a public meeting to be again presented
> at a meeting then this petition will be allowed to proceed. If, on the
> other hand, this petition is ruled out of order then someone on the AC
> or working for ARIN has been a little loose with the truth.
> 
> I ask you to help place the ARIN Policy Development Process under a
> microscope by joining this petition to advance a revised draft policy
> 2011-1 to last call. You may do so by posting the message "I support
> this petition" including your name, organization and contact info to
> this PPML mailing list as described at the bottom of
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
> 
> 
> 
> William Herrin, speaking for myself. Contact info in sig below.
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 06:00:33 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 06:00:33 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ?Please indicate which Advisory Council action you are petitioning
> ?so that the petition process may be initiated.

John,

The petition contains not the slightest ambiguity as to what's being
petitioned and you well know it. Either the PDP provides the community
via petition with the same suite of actions available to the AC or it
does not. If it does not then the AC is empowered and encouraged to
engage in corrupt practices by bringing vague or otherwise faulty text
to the meeting which neutralizes the subsequent petition process when
they rewrite it.

You asked for feedback about what's wrong with the PDP. From top to
bottom I think it's structured to encourage AC misadventure. Consider
this an opportunity to see that in action.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 06:07:45 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 06:07:45 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1: reciprocity NOT required
In-Reply-To: <E0BD69B7-03F2-480B-9DA6-02DD490BC843@delong.com>
References: <CAP-guGX6nJHttpB6yWGzZL=bRBUCdivBiRwmerrUVMnJFKKTcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E0BD69B7-03F2-480B-9DA6-02DD490BC843@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXB5FvWmOsM_w=3JYdOJcWKvFP=TqH6ZK9BpoTDSPMa5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:23 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> And correct me if I'm wrong, but APNIC uses country-level
>> sub-registries very differently than ARIN. So, even if APNIC up top
>> eventually adopts a reciprocal policy, it may be mooted by the
>> country-level policies.
>>
> You are wrong...
>
> Your understanding of how APNIC NIRs operate is not correct.
> The NIRs are not allowed to set independent addressing policies.
> They are primarily a voting block ?and a language interface arrangement.
> They are a local front-end to the APNIC request process.

Please reconcile this claim with
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096/prop-096-v001.txt

7.  Effect on NIRs
------------------

It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this policy.


Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 06:19:09 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:19:09 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>

Bill -

    Your comments on the PDP are noted, but that still does not provide the ability to introduce your own text.

     If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1, please note which version.  While that is not specifically provided for in the present PDP, that is also not clearly prohibited and I believe provides sufficient ability to respond to AC actions of concern.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:00 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>  Please indicate which Advisory Council action you are petitioning
>>  so that the petition process may be initiated.
> 
> John,
> 
> The petition contains not the slightest ambiguity as to what's being
> petitioned and you well know it. Either the PDP provides the community
> via petition with the same suite of actions available to the AC or it
> does not. If it does not then the AC is empowered and encouraged to
> engage in corrupt practices by bringing vague or otherwise faulty text
> to the meeting which neutralizes the subsequent petition process when
> they rewrite it.
> 
> You asked for feedback about what's wrong with the PDP. From top to
> bottom I think it's structured to encourage AC misadventure. Consider
> this an opportunity to see that in action.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 06:28:58 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 06:28:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ? ? If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1,
>please note which version. ?While that is not specifically
>provided for in the present PDP, that is also not clearly
>prohibited and I believe provides sufficient ability to
>respond to AC actions of concern.

John,

Please explain how reverting to text that staff described as,
"unclear, vague, and wide open for
interpretation," adequately responds to the AC's actions of concern.

Regards,
Bill Herrin





-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Tue Nov  8 06:36:22 2011
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert Seastrom)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 06:36:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <74F7AB37-96EB-445B-BBEC-295F0A0E0E49@arin.net> (John Curran's
	message of "Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:36:10 +0000")
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<74F7AB37-96EB-445B-BBEC-295F0A0E0E49@arin.net>
Message-ID: <86r51i977t.fsf@seastrom.com>


Thanks John.

-r

John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:

> FYI - I've requested a refreshed staff and legal review for 2011-1;
> you'll should have it by mid-week.
>
> /John
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Robert Seastrom wrote:
>
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>> 
>> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
>> 
>> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>> 
>> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 07:00:50 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:00:50 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:29 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>     If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1,
>> please note which version.  
> John,
> 
> Please explain how reverting to text that staff described as,
> "unclear, vague, and wide open for
> interpretation," adequately responds to the AC's actions of concern.

Bill -

   I specifically said "an earlier version", not the immediately prior version.  This addresses the potential situation where may not be adequate opportunity to petition changes made by the AC immediately prior to the Public Policy Meeting.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
 

From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Nov  8 07:11:13 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 06:11:13 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com><35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

Bill,

The AC is made up of community representatives elected by that community.  There are 15 of them, all free thinkers with great experience in all aspects of our industry.

While any body can be corrupted with enough influence by people who are motivated by money or power, I think this is far from the mark with the current AC and the 2011-1 Draft Policy is far from earth shaking in its absolute impact.  There are global implications of fairness, community, and allocation of scarce resources involved, but the people who are concerned about its impact can and are making their voices heard.

That those voices are chorused by so few, after 2 years of debate, indicates to me that there is very little interest overall and that the current Draft is a reasonable step in the direction that the community intends policy to go.

To make this Draft Policy a referendum on ARIN's PDP process, the staff and the persons elected to help process policy is to divert attention from the Draft Policy itself.

You are free to propose new text for policy in a policy proposal, but substituting completely new language into a 'last call' position within the PDP process is completely out of line and affords the community very little opportunity to consider and debate its utility.

You have expressed your opinion on the Draft Policy and on the PDP process and both are appropriate.

I echo John Sweeting's earlier emails asking others to share their support or not for this DP.

Bill Darte


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of William Herrin
Sent: Tue 11/8/2011 5:00 AM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
 
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ?Please indicate which Advisory Council action you are petitioning
> ?so that the petition process may be initiated.

John,

The petition contains not the slightest ambiguity as to what's being
petitioned and you well know it. Either the PDP provides the community
via petition with the same suite of actions available to the AC or it
does not. If it does not then the AC is empowered and encouraged to
engage in corrupt practices by bringing vague or otherwise faulty text
to the meeting which neutralizes the subsequent petition process when
they rewrite it.

You asked for feedback about what's wrong with the PDP. From top to
bottom I think it's structured to encourage AC misadventure. Consider
this an opportunity to see that in action.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/98cf84f2/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 08:18:43 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:18:43 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:29 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> ? ? If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1,
>>> please note which version.
>> John,
>>
>> Please explain how reverting to text that staff described as,
>> "unclear, vague, and wide open for
>> interpretation," adequately responds to the AC's actions of concern.
>
> ? I specifically said "an earlier version", not the immediately
> prior version. ?This addresses the potential situation where
> may not be adequate opportunity to petition changes made
> by the AC immediately prior to the Public Policy Meeting.

John,

Which previous version of draft 2011-1 do you believe contains
language for which staff's criticism is not valid?

Or do I misunderstand? Do you propose that 2011-1 should have been
petitioned at the prior petition point when the sloppy language was
first accepted onto the AC's docket even though the AC is supposed to
address such errors in that discussion and development phase making
such a petition premature?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 09:00:30 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:00:30 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:19 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:29 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>    If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1,
>>>> please note which version.
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> Please explain how reverting to text that staff described as,
>>> "unclear, vague, and wide open for
>>> interpretation," adequately responds to the AC's actions of concern.
>> 
>>  I specifically said "an earlier version", not the immediately
>> prior version.  This addresses the potential situation where
>> may not be adequate opportunity to petition changes made
>> by the AC immediately prior to the Public Policy Meeting.
> 
> John,
> 
> Which previous version of draft 2011-1 do you believe contains
> language for which staff's criticism is not valid?

The page for Draft Policy 2011-1 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html> contains links to all prior texts and assessments.

> Or do I misunderstand? Do you propose that 2011-1 should have been petitioned at the prior petition point when the sloppy language was
> first accepted onto the AC's docket even though the AC is supposed to
> address such errors in that discussion and development phase making
> such a petition premature?

I am not proposing that any petition should be made, only noting that petitioning to an earlier version is a reasonable and prudent mechanism which does not appear to conflict with the PDP petition process.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  8 09:18:53 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:18:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Oxwt_mV9jaKSewD+whGu312FbcOQ7FVF6nXXWMW7_dvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:19 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:29 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>> ? ?If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1,
>>>>> please note which version.
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how reverting to text that staff described as,
>>>> "unclear, vague, and wide open for
>>>> interpretation," adequately responds to the AC's actions of concern.
>>>
>>> ?I specifically said "an earlier version", not the immediately
>>> prior version. ?This addresses the potential situation where
>>> may not be adequate opportunity to petition changes made
>>> by the AC immediately prior to the Public Policy Meeting.
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Which previous version of draft 2011-1 do you believe contains
>> language for which staff's criticism is not valid?
>
> The page for Draft Policy 2011-1 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html> contains links to all prior texts and assessments.
>
>> Or do I misunderstand? Do you propose that 2011-1 should have been petitioned at the prior petition point when the sloppy language was
>> first accepted onto the AC's docket even though the AC is supposed to
>> address such errors in that discussion and development phase making
>> such a petition premature?
>
> I am not proposing that any petition should be made, only noting that petitioning to an earlier version is a reasonable and prudent mechanism which does not appear to conflict with the PDP petition process.
>


I don't see any language that requires this. Emphasis added.

"Any member of the community, including a proposal originator, may
initiate a Discussion Petition if they are *dissatisfied with the
action taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific policy
proposal*. If successful, this petition will change the policy
proposal to a draft policy which will be published for discussion and
review by the community on the PPML and at an upcoming public policy
meeting. "

It doesn't appear to say anything about specific text. Reference?

Best,

-M<


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 09:30:50 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:30:50 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5Oxwt_mV9jaKSewD+whGu312FbcOQ7FVF6nXXWMW7_dvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Oxwt_mV9jaKSewD+whGu312FbcOQ7FVF6nXXWMW7_dvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F1A8EB89-80F4-4611-94A4-E819265A5E10@corp.arin.net>


On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see any language that requires this. Emphasis added.
   
> "Any member of the community, including a proposal originator, may
> initiate a Discussion Petition if they are *dissatisfied with the
> action taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific policy
> proposal*. If successful, this petition will change the policy
> proposal to a draft policy which will be published for discussion and
> review by the community on the PPML and at an upcoming public policy
> meeting. "
> 
> It doesn't appear to say anything about specific text. Reference?

It states that _the policy proposal_ becomes a Draft Policy, to be discussed at the next Public Policy Meeting.

"The policy proposal" is a reference to the specific policy proposal upon which the AC took action (the action which is now being petitioned)

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

From springer at inlandnet.com  Tue Nov  8 11:33:47 2011
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com><35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <20111108083228.V25469@mail.inlandnet.com>

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Bill Darte wrote:

> I echo John Sweeting's earlier emails asking others to share their support or not for this DP.
>
> Bill Darte
>

I support this draft policy.

John Springer


From randy.whitney at verizon.com  Tue Nov  8 12:08:14 2011
From: randy.whitney at verizon.com (Randy Whitney)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:08:14 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <4EB961FE.7070506@verizon.com>

Support. -Randy

On 11/7/2011 6:11 PM, Robert Seastrom wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
> 
> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
> 
> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
> 
> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com  Tue Nov  8 13:14:28 2011
From: rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com (Brett Frankenberger)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:14:28 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <20111108181428.GA3907@panix.com>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:41:43AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
> Bill -
>  
>   Your petition must conform to the ARIN Policy Development Policy,
>   and that does not provide for submission of an alternate version
>   of the draft policy via the petition process.  It provides for 
>   the petition of an "action taken by the Advisory Council".  The
>   ARIN PDP may be found here: <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>
> 
>   Please indicate which Advisory Council action you are petitioning 
>   so that the petition process may be initiated.

He is petitioning the AC's failure to advance a draft policy worded
exactly as the one that appears in his petition.

I think his underlying point is that if the AC has the authority to
substantially revise a policy on its own and then immediately advance
that to last call, then he should be able to petition any decision by
the AC to not revise the policy the way he wants it revised.

Of course, now we'll have to debate what "action of the Advisory
Council" means.  Some will argue that it doesn't include "failure to
take an action".

     -- Brett


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 13:24:12 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:24:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWHFA06a4j0Va7U4W2+cvMPKbqnOdgJH1iSxJPo0i+C2w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:19 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:29 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>> ? ?If you wish to revert to an earlier version of 2011-1,
>>>>> please note which version.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how reverting to text that staff described as,
>>>> "unclear, vague, and wide open for
>>>> interpretation," adequately responds to the AC's actions of concern.
>>>
>>> ?I specifically said "an earlier version", not the immediately
>>> prior version. ?This addresses the potential situation where
>>> may not be adequate opportunity to petition changes made
>>> by the AC immediately prior to the Public Policy Meeting.
>>
>> Which previous version of draft 2011-1 do you believe contains
>> language for which staff's criticism is not valid?
>
> The page for Draft Policy 2011-1 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html>
>contains links to all prior texts and assessments.

John,

Yes, I'm aware. Is there a particular draft in that list which you
believe does not suffer from, as the staff evaluation of the 9/22
version put it, "policy language [that] is unclear, vague, and is wide
open for interpretation?"

See, from where I'm sitting the notion that I can just petition
another of the 2011-1's several drafts is sounding real disingenuous.
But if you think I should take another look one of the drafts, I will.

I don't ask you to find something in the PDP that isn't there, but if
the honest answer is, "Sorry, the community has no direct recourse for
this AC action under the PDP," I'd prefer that you state it plainly.
That might allow the discussion to move from acknowledging that
there's a problem to how the problem might be fixed.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 13:28:41 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:28:41 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <20111108181428.GA3907@panix.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<20111108181428.GA3907@panix.com>
Message-ID: <FA4CD582-4CCA-444A-887A-5508E87C79BC@arin.net>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> He is petitioning the AC's failure to advance a draft policy worded
> exactly as the one that appears in his petition.

Indeed, that may be his intention.

> I think his underlying point is that if the AC has the authority to
> substantially revise a policy on its own and then immediately advance
> that to last call, then he should be able to petition any decision by
> the AC to not revise the policy the way he wants it revised.

The ARIN AC does have the power to substantially revise or even 
abandon policy proposals (in fact, they're elected predominantly 
to perform that particular actions in the process of managing 
policy proposals through the Policy Development Process).  

The community may petition against such revisions or abandonment;
a petition is specifically against an ARIN AC action and not the
process for introduction of additional policy proposals.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov  8 13:56:50 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:56:50 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWHFA06a4j0Va7U4W2+cvMPKbqnOdgJH1iSxJPo0i+C2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWHFA06a4j0Va7U4W2+cvMPKbqnOdgJH1iSxJPo0i+C2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C73DB121-3934-4437-AFE1-49108A011B48@delong.com>

> 
> I don't ask you to find something in the PDP that isn't there, but if
> the honest answer is, "Sorry, the community has no direct recourse for
> this AC action under the PDP," I'd prefer that you state it plainly.
> That might allow the discussion to move from acknowledging that
> there's a problem to how the problem might be fixed.
> 

Bill,

The community has several direct recourses available.

First, you can state your opposition to the draft in last call, as you have
done. Your opposition does not go unnoticed or unheeded. However, it
is taken in the context of the comments by others either in support or
in opposition to the proposal.

Second, if the AC does forward the draft to the board after last call
is completed and you feel that the AC did not properly follow the PDP,
you can make your case to the board and ask that they take appropriate
action on the policy (whether that be returning it to the AC, insisting that
it go through more community discussions, return to another meeting,
etc.).

I'm not sure, honestly, whether the petition process allows for a petition
against the AC forwarding something to the board after last call is
complete, but, I would think that if it does not, it should. I am, however,
confident that if you make a compelling case to the board that the AC
did not follow the PDP, the board will take that seriously and will take
the appropriate action. I know that in the past, the board has remanded
at least one policy back to the AC because they were less than 100% confident
in the AC's action. In the case I'm aware of, it had to do with a low voter
turnout at the AC meeting. The AC (with more members present) at the
next meeting) upheld the prior vote unanimously. However, we did also
adopt a rule requiring a minimum of 8 AC votes to take final action
on a policy proposal or draft policy.

As John stated, you do have the petition process to undo the AC's
edits and push forward a prior version of the text. That is a direct
recourse against the AC's action. I recognize that you do not consider
it desirable in this case. I'm inclined to agree with you.

Where I disagree with you is when you turn that into a belief that
the AC is somehow incentivized to bring bad policy text to the meeting
simply for the sake of being able to do bigger rewrites later in the
process.

I can assure you that the AC process on 2011-1 has been far from
ideal and that the AC has struggled and agonized over this policy
to bring it to its current state. We would all much rather have had
ideal text to present before the meeting. However, we're also
volunteers with day jobs and other demands on our time and
sometimes the ideal doesn't quite get achieved. If you want to say
that means we screwed up or fell down on the job, OK, I'll accept
that might be valid criticism in this case. However, we are all
doing our best on a fairly heavy policy workload. Could we have
done better on this policy before Philadelphia? Yes, I believe we 
could. However, faced with the situation that existed after the
Philadelphia meeting, I believe that we took the best action possible.
I understand and accept that you do not agree.

Finally, you have the recourse of voting for AC and/or BoT members
each year. You also have the option of running for either position.

Owen



From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 14:56:49 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:56:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <C73DB121-3934-4437-AFE1-49108A011B48@delong.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWHFA06a4j0Va7U4W2+cvMPKbqnOdgJH1iSxJPo0i+C2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<C73DB121-3934-4437-AFE1-49108A011B48@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWVs047CqHoH0Tcd5Y3xu4V454K4LC24fOYBPK9WnnKQA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I can assure you that the AC process on 2011-1 has been far from
> ideal and that the AC has struggled and agonized over this policy
> to bring it to its current state. We would all much rather have had
> ideal text to present before the meeting.

Owen,

I offer no criticism for bringing an unready draft to the meeting and
if I've said anything which implies otherwise then I apologize. Quite
the contrary, I've frequently argued that ideas should be brought
forward to the meeting even if perfect policy text hasn't yet been
hammered out. If anything, I congratulate the AC for presenting the
September draft, warts and all.

But, in my opinion, the AC then fumbled the ball. If clean policy
language couldn't be found with minimalist changes the September draft
then it should have gone back on the docket for the more extensive
changes like what Scott came up with. Jumping straight to last call
(while the distraction of your day jobs prevented adequate vetting)
yielded a badly flawed document with the faults which I and others
have pointed out.



> Finally, you have the recourse of voting for AC and/or BoT members
> each year.

No, I don't. Like many merely interested members of the community, I
am not permitted to vote. Only "ARIN members" who have paid for the
privilege may do so.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 15:03:51 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:03:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> The AC is made up of community representatives elected by that community.

Bill,

That's a lie, is it not? I believe you when you say you try to do your
best for the entire community. Were the entire community eligible to
vote, they might well have elected you. But they weren't and aren't
eligible to vote.

In fact, the eligibility to vote in the election which put you on the
advisory council was restricted to "ARIN members," a tiny fraction of
the number-resource using community in the ARIN region consisting
almost but not quite exclusively of ISPs. Nor can you claim to be a
second-level representative, elected by people who were elected by the
community at large.

So, let's dispose of this notion that any member of the AC has a
representative mandate which arises from his or her election by "the
community." Your mandate comes top down from the Board of Trustees,
their direction to the AC to develop number policy for the
organization. To what has, since the demise of the IRPEP, become a
progressively more secondary consideration, it also comes bottom up
from the vocal support or opposition offered on specific text.

At least, it bubbles up when that text is actually presented to the
whole community instead of just the portion which haunts PPML. Which
draft 2011-1, having never seen a public meeting in anything close to
its current form, has not.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 15:19:25 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 20:19:25 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWHFA06a4j0Va7U4W2+cvMPKbqnOdgJH1iSxJPo0i+C2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<57ADDB2F-2D25-4DDC-BE11-E81E63ABCE92@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU6DuDgYSSQsqPgEBmTE6gXGhL5SxgCQYJyNvHA12zZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<26B05113-B353-4D99-AEEB-006BA5BB8F55@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW_M5rqLEbVT+CdLPNsf=0abV0pJJDPEFNhDbVynGfw-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A2423A-BEB3-4972-90FC-D9F8574B6594@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWHFA06a4j0Va7U4W2+cvMPKbqnOdgJH1iSxJPo0i+C2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF4735C8-3B6C-4792-9C4D-E34D32F010F9@arin.net>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 1:24 PM, William Herrin wrote:

>> The page for Draft Policy 2011-1 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html>
>> contains links to all prior texts and assessments.
> 
> John,
> 
> Yes, I'm aware. Is there a particular draft in that list which you
> believe does not suffer from, as the staff evaluation of the 9/22
> version put it, "policy language [that] is unclear, vague, and is wide
> open for interpretation?"

Only the Staff Assessment for the 22 September 2011 version of Draft 
Policy 2011-1 found language which was categorized as "unclear, vague, 
and is wide open for interpretation."

> I don't ask you to find something in the PDP that isn't there,

Bill - By providing new policy text via petition, you were indeed seeking
a mechanism presently not in Policy Development Process.

> but if the honest answer is, "Sorry, the community has no direct
> recourse for this AC action under the PDP," I'd prefer that you state
> it plainly. That might allow the discussion to move from acknowledging
> that there's a problem to how the problem might be fixed.

If the ARIN AC abandoned or made changes to a draft policy that you 
disagree with, then you may petition against that action.  If your
goal is to substitute your own text for the draft policy, that would
be best done by submitting a new policy proposal for consideration. 
The AC would consider that new proposal and have the option of moving
forward with it instead of the current 2011-1.  While it is possible 
for the AC to abandon your version, you could always petition that
action to insure that your proposal text makes it to the Public Policy 
Meeting for community consideration. 

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 15:23:31 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 20:23:31 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> At least, it bubbles up when that text is actually presented to the
> whole community instead of just the portion which haunts PPML. 

Bill - 
 
  I'd like to understand this point better; do you believe that 
  there is a significant difference between those on the PPML
  mailing list and those who attend the Public Policy Meeting?
  
Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From bensons at queuefull.net  Tue Nov  8 15:27:57 2011
From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:27:57 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <116458E3-66D6-4144-971F-9C8B7388F611@queuefull.net>


On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:23 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> At least, it bubbles up when that text is actually presented to the
>> whole community instead of just the portion which haunts PPML. 
> ...
>  I'd like to understand this point better; do you believe that 
>  there is a significant difference between those on the PPML
>  mailing list and those who attend the Public Policy Meeting?

I can't speak for Bill.  But from my perspective, neither of these categories (PPML members and/or PPM attendees) represent the "whole community".

Cheers,
-Benson



From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 15:36:57 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:36:57 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXPvYueyxRtg7Rd5w0sMvu+oUNUkJvf2ztF04Kzbfm5_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:23 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> At least, it bubbles up when that text is actually presented to the
>> whole community instead of just the portion which haunts PPML.
>
> ?I'd like to understand this point better; do you believe that
> ?there is a significant difference between those on the PPML
> ?mailing list and those who attend the Public Policy Meeting?

John,

Certainly. I've met plenty of folks at the meeting that I've never
seen on PPML. And I've read valuable debate on the PPML from folks who
as far as I know have never attended a meeting. There is some
intersection to be sure, but it's far from total.

Your experience is different?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Nov  8 15:39:19 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:39:19 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C20@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

Bill,

My error in stating community rather than the specific voting community.
You may call it a lie if you choose.

My point is that we work hard in the role that we have to respond to the needs of the community and to craft policy..in a timely fashion...which the community wants.  As such, we reshaped the 2011-1 language to respond to what we heard in Philly and in San Juan before.

The result is what is offered to last call and has been supported and challenged.

bd


-----Original Message-----
From: wherrin at gmail.com on behalf of William Herrin
Sent: Tue 11/8/2011 2:03 PM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
 
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> The AC is made up of community representatives elected by that community.

Bill,

That's a lie, is it not? I believe you when you say you try to do your
best for the entire community. Were the entire community eligible to
vote, they might well have elected you. But they weren't and aren't
eligible to vote.

In fact, the eligibility to vote in the election which put you on the
advisory council was restricted to "ARIN members," a tiny fraction of
the number-resource using community in the ARIN region consisting
almost but not quite exclusively of ISPs. Nor can you claim to be a
second-level representative, elected by people who were elected by the
community at large.

So, let's dispose of this notion that any member of the AC has a
representative mandate which arises from his or her election by "the
community." Your mandate comes top down from the Board of Trustees,
their direction to the AC to develop number policy for the
organization. To what has, since the demise of the IRPEP, become a
progressively more secondary consideration, it also comes bottom up
from the vocal support or opposition offered on specific text.

At least, it bubbles up when that text is actually presented to the
whole community instead of just the portion which haunts PPML. Which
draft 2011-1, having never seen a public meeting in anything close to
its current form, has not.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/b11da1b0/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov  8 15:45:24 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 20:45:24 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXPvYueyxRtg7Rd5w0sMvu+oUNUkJvf2ztF04Kzbfm5_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXPvYueyxRtg7Rd5w0sMvu+oUNUkJvf2ztF04Kzbfm5_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F7670172-3BB0-48BD-99A5-5D21701D863E@arin.net>


On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:23 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> At least, it bubbles up when that text is actually presented to the
>>> whole community instead of just the portion which haunts PPML.
>> 
>>  I'd like to understand this point better; do you believe that
>>  there is a significant difference between those on the PPML
>>  mailing list and those who attend the Public Policy Meeting?
> 
> John,
> 
> Certainly. I've met plenty of folks at the meeting that I've never
> seen on PPML. And I've read valuable debate on the PPML from folks who
> as far as I know have never attended a meeting. There is some
> intersection to be sure, but it's far from total.

There are likely to be dozens of Public Policy Meeting attendees 
who are not on PPML, but there are thousands of PPML subscribers 
who do not attend the Public Policy Meetings onsite nor remotely.   
My reason for asking is that you seem to have characterized the 
Public Policy Meeting as "the whole community".

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 15:46:47 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:46:47 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <116458E3-66D6-4144-971F-9C8B7388F611@queuefull.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
	<116458E3-66D6-4144-971F-9C8B7388F611@queuefull.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWJr8F5Wuyd3Q1nJ+RWJTN_b4+omM0i4e_O8CQhF6JgWQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
> I can't speak for Bill. ?But from my perspective, neither
> of these categories (PPML members and/or PPM
> attendees) represent the "whole community".

Hi Benson,

I think there's a case to be made that between attendance at a
semi-annual meeting and participation on a public discussion list,
anyone who cares to make his or her voice heard on matters of ARIN
number policy has ample means to do so. We aren't the whole community,
but we're all of it who choose to speak up and be heard.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  8 16:15:51 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:15:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C20@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C20@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Bill,
>

[ clip ]

>
> My point is that we work hard in the role that we have to respond to the
> needs of the community and to craft policy..in a timely fashion...which the
> community wants.? As such, we reshaped the 2011-1 language to respond to
> what we heard in Philly and in San Juan before.
>


I think that the minuted portion of the post PPM AC meetings held
directly after the Friday session say differently. In fact, nothing
related to commentary or results of either meeting was discussed.
There was not vote taken on this text in PHL so I'm not sure how
you're able to make the conclusions that you are. .

Let me refresh the discussion:

https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2011_1014.html

"It was moved by BD, and seconded by SL, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders
expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the
ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments
collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been
followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft
Policy ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers and moves to it to Last
Call."

The Chair called for discussion.

MH moved to postpone the draft policy indefinitely. CM seconded the motion.

The Chair called for discussion. CG stated it would be better to
discuss the original motion. BS reviewed the poll counts. There was no
count performed for the text as written. SL reviewed the Public Policy
Meeting (PPM) poll questions. "

[ .. ]

"MH noted this was another dramatic change to the text.  He considered
the contentiousness of this discussion to mean that the draft policy
should not go to last call. He noted that AC meetings should not be
used for re-writing text. DF stated that BD had posted the text and
asked for feedback on the calls several months ago.

SL stated that he took the text of 2011-1 and revised it for the
Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).  CM noted that the word
?compatible? is in the staff assessment. The President stated that
this text is clearer.

OD noted that the text was removed regarding RIRs having to agree to
the transfer. He noted that there could be other reasons for RIRs not
agreeing, than having a needs-based policy.

SL suggested returning the phrase ?agree to the transfer and? to the
text. The Chair called for any objections. There were none.

The Chair pointed out there is time for small revisions during last
call. MH noted that the questions at the PPM were asked in a way to
indicate if the community wanted "an" inter-RIR process or not (as
shown in BD?s slides) and that the text being sent to last call was
not discussed, or presented, at the PPM.   BS agreed.

DF moved to send to the amended text to an extended last call through
16 November 2011. BD seconded the motion.

The Chair called for any objections. MH stated he did not support the
motion, considering that this policy as not ready for last call.

Hearing no further comments, the Chair called for a roll call vote to
send Draft Policy 2011-1, as amended, to an extended last call through
16 November 2011.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, (SL, CA, MC, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH,
CM, JS) and 3 against (MH, BS, HS).

BD volunteered to craft the explanation for the community regarding
amended text, and asked the other AC members for assistance."



Best,

-M<


From bensons at queuefull.net  Tue Nov  8 16:17:38 2011
From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:17:38 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWJr8F5Wuyd3Q1nJ+RWJTN_b4+omM0i4e_O8CQhF6JgWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
	<116458E3-66D6-4144-971F-9C8B7388F611@queuefull.net>
	<CAP-guGWJr8F5Wuyd3Q1nJ+RWJTN_b4+omM0i4e_O8CQhF6JgWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <255FA130-45FE-4C20-ADE1-80A8A6FB16CB@queuefull.net>


On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
>> I can't speak for Bill.  But from my perspective, neither
>> of these categories (PPML members and/or PPM
>> attendees) represent the "whole community".
> ...
> I think there's a case to be made that between attendance at a
> semi-annual meeting and participation on a public discussion list,
> anyone who cares to make his or her voice heard on matters of ARIN
> number policy has ample means to do so. We aren't the whole community,
> but we're all of it who choose to speak up and be heard.

That's a fair statement.  (Except, I note: there are people who "care" and still don't invest the energy needed to make themselves "heard". This is true for various reasons, that I won't bother to expand at this time because they distract from the main point.)

But my intended meaning is that the AC is not representative of the "whole community". ARIN does a good job at allowing the community to provide input, agreed. But of that community, only a subset are members. And of those members, an even smaller self-selected subset bother to vote. When the AC makes decisions, those decisions represent the self-interest, bias, and ideology of a small part of the whole community. (Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily to the same extent for all AC members.)

For what it's worth, I don't know how to improve the situation - if I did, I'd make a recommendation to ARIN.  But in the meantime I think ARIN should be honest with itself; it's inappropriate to claim a "whole community" mandate for the AC.

Just my opinion.
Cheers,
-Benson



From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Tue Nov  8 16:43:39 2011
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:43:39 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

Just to set the record straight, the AC spent over an hour discussing and
working on the new text in a pre-meeting workshop. This was in addition to
the time spent by some AC members working on the text the day/night
before. Thanks!

++

On 11/8/11 4:15 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>
>[ clip ]
>
>>
>> My point is that we work hard in the role that we have to respond to the
>> needs of the community and to craft policy..in a timely fashion...which
>>the
>> community wants.  As such, we reshaped the 2011-1 language to respond to
>> what we heard in Philly and in San Juan before.
>>
>
>
>I think that the minuted portion of the post PPM AC meetings held
>directly after the Friday session say differently. In fact, nothing
>related to commentary or results of either meeting was discussed.
>There was not vote taken on this text in PHL so I'm not sure how
>you're able to make the conclusions that you are. .
>


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.


From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov  8 17:11:40 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:11:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)
In-Reply-To: <255FA130-45FE-4C20-ADE1-80A8A6FB16CB@queuefull.net>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F5D72FF-30D4-464E-9019-EFD85280691B@arin.net>
	<116458E3-66D6-4144-971F-9C8B7388F611@queuefull.net>
	<CAP-guGWJr8F5Wuyd3Q1nJ+RWJTN_b4+omM0i4e_O8CQhF6JgWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<255FA130-45FE-4C20-ADE1-80A8A6FB16CB@queuefull.net>
Message-ID: <F7256AC1-67B4-4947-899C-0D1F9CBE28ED@delong.com>


On Nov 8, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> 
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
>>> I can't speak for Bill.  But from my perspective, neither
>>> of these categories (PPML members and/or PPM
>>> attendees) represent the "whole community".
>> ...
>> I think there's a case to be made that between attendance at a
>> semi-annual meeting and participation on a public discussion list,
>> anyone who cares to make his or her voice heard on matters of ARIN
>> number policy has ample means to do so. We aren't the whole community,
>> but we're all of it who choose to speak up and be heard.
> 
> That's a fair statement.  (Except, I note: there are people who "care" and still don't invest the energy needed to make themselves "heard". This is true for various reasons, that I won't bother to expand at this time because they distract from the main point.)
> 

If they choose not to participate given the very low bar required for participation (join
a free mailing list and post something to it), I would say that they don't appear to actually
care very much.

> But my intended meaning is that the AC is not representative of the "whole community". ARIN does a good job at allowing the community to provide input, agreed. But of that community, only a subset are members. And of those members, an even smaller self-selected subset bother to vote. When the AC makes decisions, those decisions represent the self-interest, bias, and ideology of a small part of the whole community. (Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily to the same extent for all AC members.)
> 

While I agree with the first part of your statement, I do not think your characterization of
our voting tendencies fits your statement. For example, the self-interest, bias, and
ideology of the portion of the community you claim our decisions represent would
never have opted for a 3-month allocation/assignment window, would not have put
IPv6 end-user assignments into the policy, certainly would not have supported the
new more liberal IPv6 end-user assignment policy, etc.

I would like to see the AC elected by more of the community and I've encouraged
the board to look for ways to do so on several occasions.

> For what it's worth, I don't know how to improve the situation - if I did, I'd make a recommendation to ARIN.  But in the meantime I think ARIN should be honest with itself; it's inappropriate to claim a "whole community" mandate for the AC.
> 

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but, while I recognize I am elected
by the members, frankly, I consider that it is my duty to represent the entire
community and not merely the electorate in discharging my duties as a
member of the AC.

I believe that the public record shows that I have done so consistently.

Owen



From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  8 19:05:10 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:05:10 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Sweeting, John
<john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> Just to set the record straight, the AC spent over an hour discussing and
> working on the new text in a pre-meeting workshop. This was in addition to
> the time spent by some AC members working on the text the day/night
> before. Thanks!

John,

Thanks, but there's nothing being set straight with respect to this
posting in your response. It was never indicated that someone on the
AC didn't work on the text. The point of the post was to demonstrate
that the text was so significantly changed that no one in the
community had an opportunity to review or comment on it prior to the
AC discussion and fast forwarding.

If you'd like to share the version that was presented to the AC during
the AC meeting pre-meeting, that might be additionally helpful to
demonstrate the difference further.

Best!

-M<



>
> ++
>
> On 11/8/11 4:15 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>
>>[ clip ]
>>
>>>
>>> My point is that we work hard in the role that we have to respond to the
>>> needs of the community and to craft policy..in a timely fashion...which
>>>the
>>> community wants. ?As such, we reshaped the 2011-1 language to respond to
>>> what we heard in Philly and in San Juan before.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think that the minuted portion of the post PPM AC meetings held
>>directly after the Friday session say differently. In fact, nothing
>>related to commentary or results of either meeting was discussed.
>>There was not vote taken on this text in PHL so I'm not sure how
>>you're able to make the conclusions that you are. .
>>
>
>
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov  8 19:33:03 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:33:03 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>

To say that no one in the community has had a chance to respond to the new
text is far from the truth.  This extended last call has given the
community ample chance to comment and many folks have commented.

----Cathy

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Sweeting, John
> <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> > Just to set the record straight, the AC spent over an hour discussing and
> > working on the new text in a pre-meeting workshop. This was in addition
> to
> > the time spent by some AC members working on the text the day/night
> > before. Thanks!
>
> John,
>
> Thanks, but there's nothing being set straight with respect to this
> posting in your response. It was never indicated that someone on the
> AC didn't work on the text. The point of the post was to demonstrate
> that the text was so significantly changed that no one in the
> community had an opportunity to review or comment on it prior to the
> AC discussion and fast forwarding.
>
> If you'd like to share the version that was presented to the AC during
> the AC meeting pre-meeting, that might be additionally helpful to
> demonstrate the difference further.
>
> Best!
>
> -M<
>
>
>
> >
> > ++
> >
> > On 11/8/11 4:15 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> >>> Bill,
> >>>
> >>
> >>[ clip ]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> My point is that we work hard in the role that we have to respond to
> the
> >>> needs of the community and to craft policy..in a timely fashion...which
> >>>the
> >>> community wants.  As such, we reshaped the 2011-1 language to respond
> to
> >>> what we heard in Philly and in San Juan before.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>I think that the minuted portion of the post PPM AC meetings held
> >>directly after the Friday session say differently. In fact, nothing
> >>related to commentary or results of either meeting was discussed.
> >>There was not vote taken on this text in PHL so I'm not sure how
> >>you're able to make the conclusions that you are. .
> >>
> >
> >
> > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/a1d33714/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 19:41:36 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:41:36 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C20@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <CAP-guGWdqyYwVvV3Kr5s3WVkXk4emvTQ4N7HFLo=hUvo+xDoGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<35F894BA-D021-4BF8-AFC0-2163BC51F4F5@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX69ibPyZjkgncJ2qtOj8rR9b4hMAscgdrz7VudnFRRHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C1B@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGV5M-cqoa+3jvmTujCDJ_3tNHLq4sSFJyi-MgVBzmk-vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C20@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU98ao30zx0mJyv5xXgNetM1y=TA3p6D48G_dgSHqp1mg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> My error in stating community rather than the specific voting community.
> My point is that we work hard in the role that we have to respond to the
> needs of the community and to craft policy..in a timely fashion...which the
> community wants.

Which community, the "specific voting community?"

Okay, that was a cheap shot. The truth is, I appreciate your hard
work. In the case of several AC members (including you) I appreciate
your responsiveness. But never imagine that you have the wider
community's bottom-up mandate to write number policy on their behalf.
You don't. That mandate came top-down from the Board. While I deeply
respect them as individuals, their election was no more broadly based
than your own.

You gain the wider community's mandate only with their participation,
not just in approving policy text but drafting it in the first place.
The less you solicit that participation, the more fiercely you defend
choices not to integrate it, the weaker the organization's claim to a
bottom-up mandate becomes.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  8 19:55:58 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:55:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> To say that no one in the community has had a chance to respond to the new
> text is far from the truth. ?This extended last call has given the community
> ample chance to comment and many folks have commented.

Cathy,

The path to last call is a portion of this discussion, amongst other
items, that is being questioned. Between the text presentation and
last call, no-one in the community was able to comment on it. If you
disagree, please provider a specific reference so that I can correct
myself if necessary. But -- It's also not really relevant at this
point. This proposal was adopted long before it was published. The
process is simply a perfunctory formality.

Best!

-M<


From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov  8 20:23:49 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:23:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7acOfWr-bi5wZbWAkPkt3UFxLjg5D2M0DijCxDriauHHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Martin,

The proposal has not yet been adopted.  I don't understand how you can say
it has been.  The AC sent it to extended last call.  If the AC doesn't feel
as a group that it's ready to move forward than it won't.   We have a
number of options available to us on our next call.  Hopefully you will be
there to voice your opinions and to place your vote.

----Cathy

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> > To say that no one in the community has had a chance to respond to the
> new
> > text is far from the truth.  This extended last call has given the
> community
> > ample chance to comment and many folks have commented.
>
> Cathy,
>
> The path to last call is a portion of this discussion, amongst other
> items, that is being questioned. Between the text presentation and
> last call, no-one in the community was able to comment on it. If you
> disagree, please provider a specific reference so that I can correct
> myself if necessary. But -- It's also not really relevant at this
> point. This proposal was adopted long before it was published. The
> process is simply a perfunctory formality.
>
> Best!
>
> -M<
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/594a5f05/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  8 20:44:19 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 20:44:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMvf=7acOfWr-bi5wZbWAkPkt3UFxLjg5D2M0DijCxDriauHHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7acOfWr-bi5wZbWAkPkt3UFxLjg5D2M0DijCxDriauHHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:

[ clip ]

>Hopefully you will be there to
> voice your opinions and to place your vote.

As you know and last that I read, myself, Bill S., Chris G., Owen D.
and possibly others have conflicts with respect to this particular
call. My understanding is that you also are a "maybe not" since you'll
be in Taiwan and it may be difficult to wake up and make Skype work.
If anything changes for me, I'll do my best to be on the call. I'm
open to rescheduling the AC meeting if you are considering how many
folks will be missing and possibly and considering the importance of
the topic at hand. Thanks for bringing this up on PPML! It's a great
demonstration of how the AC works.

Best!

-M<


From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov  8 20:47:46 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:47:46 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7acOfWr-bi5wZbWAkPkt3UFxLjg5D2M0DijCxDriauHHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7bhcoy2LYv-KmwqLeE43KON5f_pEsPOhye6V7-Y1gucFA@mail.gmail.com>

Unless it's not possible because of connectivity I will be on the call.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
>
> [ clip ]
>
> >Hopefully you will be there to
> > voice your opinions and to place your vote.
>
> As you know and last that I read, myself, Bill S., Chris G., Owen D.
> and possibly others have conflicts with respect to this particular
> call. My understanding is that you also are a "maybe not" since you'll
> be in Taiwan and it may be difficult to wake up and make Skype work.
> If anything changes for me, I'll do my best to be on the call. I'm
> open to rescheduling the AC meeting if you are considering how many
> folks will be missing and possibly and considering the importance of
> the topic at hand. Thanks for bringing this up on PPML! It's a great
> demonstration of how the AC works.
>
> Best!
>
> -M<
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/f61ac1ca/attachment.htm>

From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov  8 20:57:10 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:57:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7acOfWr-bi5wZbWAkPkt3UFxLjg5D2M0DijCxDriauHHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7bg_vc=ZKC=MMALG0jn4TfPti=OD54er9OJNf-BJXN5LQ@mail.gmail.com>

I just want to say one more thing for those on PPML who don't know this.
 We have a call on the same day every month (third Thursday).  This month
that day is particularly bad for a number of people.  John Sweeting took a
poll and since more folks could make it on the 16th at our regular time
than on the 17th he has moved the call to the 16th.  I just wanted folks to
know that these are regularly scheduled calls and they are not a surprise
to anyone on the AC.   This was done in an effort to optimize the number of
folks who could be on the call.

Thanks
----Cathy

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
>
> [ clip ]
>
> >Hopefully you will be there to
> > voice your opinions and to place your vote.
>
> As you know and last that I read, myself, Bill S., Chris G., Owen D.
> and possibly others have conflicts with respect to this particular
> call. My understanding is that you also are a "maybe not" since you'll
> be in Taiwan and it may be difficult to wake up and make Skype work.
> If anything changes for me, I'll do my best to be on the call. I'm
> open to rescheduling the AC meeting if you are considering how many
> folks will be missing and possibly and considering the importance of
> the topic at hand. Thanks for bringing this up on PPML! It's a great
> demonstration of how the AC works.
>
> Best!
>
> -M<
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/f259181d/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  8 21:16:17 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:16:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWqAsCtP-tNNFGy-KaOJs3+6sVt_Nut+T6FU1tmEDtUvA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> To say that no one in the community has had a chance to respond to the new
> text is far from the truth. ?This extended last call has given the community
> ample chance to comment and many folks have commented.

Cathy,

Impress me with how well the AC listened.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov  8 21:35:09 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:35:09 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWqAsCtP-tNNFGy-KaOJs3+6sVt_Nut+T6FU1tmEDtUvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWqAsCtP-tNNFGy-KaOJs3+6sVt_Nut+T6FU1tmEDtUvA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7ZTLKOe_duDeS7048Mhek0Q-TLO9Dor9YsPG2r0-uP++g@mail.gmail.com>

The AC is listening to all input Bill.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:16 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:33 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> > To say that no one in the community has had a chance to respond to the
> new
> > text is far from the truth.  This extended last call has given the
> community
> > ample chance to comment and many folks have commented.
>
> Cathy,
>
> Impress me with how well the AC listened.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/e86b67a3/attachment.htm>

From bill at telnetcommunications.com  Tue Nov  8 21:56:44 2011
From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:56:44 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>

Hi All,

I've stayed out of the PPML debate on this one so far, but I'm going to
take a moment now and give everyone my thoughts.

First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I want to put something
on the record.  I, speaking for myself personally, do not like the idea of
Inter-RIR transfers at all.  The reasons why are irrelevant to this
discussion so I won't go into them here.

That being said, my duty as an AC member is to work productively on
policies that are desired by the community whether or not they align with
my personal views.  This is one of those cases where my personal views do
not align with the will of the community so I have "checked my personal
views at the door".  It is clear that the community wants an Inter-RIR
transfer policy and I will work hard to ensure that it is done properly.

Now on to this policy itself.

I believe that as part of the process, any policy text that gets
implemented should go before the community at a PPM.  The current text has
never seen a PPM, and if the current course is stayed it never will.  In
fact, the current policy text, in its entirety, was drafted by an AC
Member less than 24 hours before it was advanced to last call.  As an AC
Member, I only saw this text a few hours before I was asked to vote on it.
 This seems very very wrong to me.

If this was text that was merely revised I might be able to support this.
But this is not *revised* text, this is *completely rewritten* text.  Not
a single sentence from a version presented at any PPM is in this text.

Not only has the text been re-written, but it has changed sections too.

I won't go out as far as others have to say that this is an "end run" on
the PDP, but I certainly believe that a 100% revision by the AC at last
call is beyond my interpretation of the *spirit* of the PDP.  I will
however note that it is my opinion only.

For all of the reasons above, I do NOT support the policy as it stands now
in last call.  I believe this policy needs to stay on the docket to be
cleaned up, presented at the next PPM, and then adopted (assuming the
community wishes for it to be at that time).

Regards,
Bill

On 11-11-07 6:11 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:

>
>Hi everyone,
>
>By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct
>people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>
>Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a
>clear statement.
>
>2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it
>the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and
>state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or
>oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>
>We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is
>at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later
>than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>
>Thank you,
>
>-r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov  8 22:43:22 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:43:22 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5MrZFLfw9B+-1vuhFuwjiH5b_cYBC4LVuAgpS2gYw5vEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADF0921.D02B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5N9SwkqOESuLqdiG_zQHYPUSf8dHaTqZ5Ei8z+moPkc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7ag8WMF6cFVYH-HAi7wP4kiHm3LYP57e03+M1dL=Cs+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5MwHAfFWsfRrpKdxk+jL4Guy+bED4pA77SaLmTXmvb0eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMvf=7acOfWr-bi5wZbWAkPkt3UFxLjg5D2M0DijCxDriauHHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDXq5NrvnwyN5RSNBCuy_Br1Fyw1Q6VsFG8wYr3XNTBXB57rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FD1E51F0-2F93-4893-A36A-7695739FE95C@delong.com>

Since the call was rescheduled to the 16th, I have no conflict.

Owen

On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
>> Hopefully you will be there to
>> voice your opinions and to place your vote.
> 
> As you know and last that I read, myself, Bill S., Chris G., Owen D.
> and possibly others have conflicts with respect to this particular
> call. My understanding is that you also are a "maybe not" since you'll
> be in Taiwan and it may be difficult to wake up and make Skype work.
> If anything changes for me, I'll do my best to be on the call. I'm
> open to rescheduling the AC meeting if you are considering how many
> folks will be missing and possibly and considering the importance of
> the topic at hand. Thanks for bringing this up on PPML! It's a great
> demonstration of how the AC works.
> 
> Best!
> 
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Nov  8 22:44:56 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:44:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5PebCr5KJDUvS=Ynth4eM20e3RijAzPGqoDqrgUSGQ6+A@mail.gmail.com>

Opposed.
On Nov 7, 2011 6:12 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:

>
> Hi everyone,
>
> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct
> people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>
> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a
> clear statement.
>
> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it
> the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state
> clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose
> 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>
> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is
> at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later
> than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111108/1d1bb817/attachment.htm>

From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Wed Nov  9 06:40:16 2011
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert Seastrom)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:40:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com> (Bill Sandiford's
	message of "Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:56:44 -0500")
References: <CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
Message-ID: <86vcqty15r.fsf@seastrom.com>


So noted.  Thanks Bill.

-r

Bill Sandiford <bill at telnetcommunications.com> writes:

> Hi All,
>
> I've stayed out of the PPML debate on this one so far, but I'm going to
> take a moment now and give everyone my thoughts.
>
> First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I want to put something
> on the record.  I, speaking for myself personally, do not like the idea of
> Inter-RIR transfers at all.  The reasons why are irrelevant to this
> discussion so I won't go into them here.
>
> That being said, my duty as an AC member is to work productively on
> policies that are desired by the community whether or not they align with
> my personal views.  This is one of those cases where my personal views do
> not align with the will of the community so I have "checked my personal
> views at the door".  It is clear that the community wants an Inter-RIR
> transfer policy and I will work hard to ensure that it is done properly.
>
> Now on to this policy itself.
>
> I believe that as part of the process, any policy text that gets
> implemented should go before the community at a PPM.  The current text has
> never seen a PPM, and if the current course is stayed it never will.  In
> fact, the current policy text, in its entirety, was drafted by an AC
> Member less than 24 hours before it was advanced to last call.  As an AC
> Member, I only saw this text a few hours before I was asked to vote on it.
>  This seems very very wrong to me.
>
> If this was text that was merely revised I might be able to support this.
> But this is not *revised* text, this is *completely rewritten* text.  Not
> a single sentence from a version presented at any PPM is in this text.
>
> Not only has the text been re-written, but it has changed sections too.
>
> I won't go out as far as others have to say that this is an "end run" on
> the PDP, but I certainly believe that a 100% revision by the AC at last
> call is beyond my interpretation of the *spirit* of the PDP.  I will
> however note that it is my opinion only.
>
> For all of the reasons above, I do NOT support the policy as it stands now
> in last call.  I believe this policy needs to stay on the docket to be
> cleaned up, presented at the next PPM, and then adopted (assuming the
> community wishes for it to be at that time).
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
> On 11-11-07 6:11 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct
>>people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>>
>>Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a
>>clear statement.
>>
>>2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it
>>the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and
>>state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or
>>oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>>
>>We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is
>>at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later
>>than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>-r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>PPML
>>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Wed Nov  9 06:40:58 2011
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert Seastrom)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:40:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5PebCr5KJDUvS=Ynth4eM20e3RijAzPGqoDqrgUSGQ6+A@mail.gmail.com>
	(Martin Hannigan's message of "Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:44:56 -0500")
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAMDXq5PebCr5KJDUvS=Ynth4eM20e3RijAzPGqoDqrgUSGQ6+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86r51hy14l.fsf@seastrom.com>


Thanks Marty.

Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> writes:

> Opposed.
>
> On Nov 7, 2011 6:12 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <[[ppml at rs.seastrom.com]]> wrote:
>
>                Hi everyone,
>      
>      By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN
>      INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>      
>      Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
>      
>      2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th. ?If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you. ?Please
>      reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as
>      written. ?Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>      
>      We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST. ?To make sure your voice is
>      heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>      
>      Thank you,
>      
>      -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>      
>      
>      _______________________________________________
>      PPML
>      You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>      the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([[ARIN-PPML at arin.net]]).
>      Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>      [[http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml]]
>      Please contact [[info at arin.net]] if you experience any issues.
>      


From linda at sat-tel.com  Wed Nov  9 09:36:12 2011
From: linda at sat-tel.com (Linda)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:36:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]  What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5PebCr5KJDUvS=Ynth4eM20e3RijAzPGqoDqrgUSGQ6+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAMDXq5PebCr5KJDUvS=Ynth4eM20e3RijAzPGqoDqrgUSGQ6+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAACdSjfXoEalDg+E7qWxxLUHCgAAAEAAAAKMHGVTuqH9InvmdXOcy/vwBAAAAAA==@sat-tel.com>

Opposed.

 

 

 

On Nov 7, 2011 6:12 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:


Hi everyone,

By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people
in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").

Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a
clear statement.

2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it
the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state
clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose
2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.

We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at
1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than
1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.

Thank you,

-r (Shepherd, 2011-1).


_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111109/c53c910e/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Nov  9 10:31:03 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:31:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Robert Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th,
> which is at 1600 EST. ?To make sure your voice is heard, please
> respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on
> Wednesday, November 16th 2011.

OPPOSE as written. Would like to see it returned to the AC's docket.

There are too many open questions about how 2011-1 would work, some
which have been asked, some which the accelerated time line hasn't
given us time to think of. I won't rehash the whole argument but I'll
offer one example:

Per ARIN President John Curran, APNIC policy 096
(http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096/prop-096-v001.txt)
causes ARIN to find APNIC policy "compatible" under draft 2011-1.
However, 096 says: "It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this
policy."

ARIN doesn't use National Internet Registries (NIRs). LIRs (ISPs) and
large or multihomed end-users register addresses directly with ARIN.
APNIC prefers to create NIRs, country-level registries, and then have
LIRs and end-users register addresses there instead.

Does the caveat in 096 mean that NIRs in the APNIC region are not
obligated to allow their registrants to transfer address to an
ARIN-region registrant even as ARIN is obligated to permit transfers
to their registrants from ARIN holdings? Without having received an
authoritative answer from APNIC leadership we can only speculate.

We shouldn't still be speculating about the effect of a draft during
last call. By now there should be little doubt as to exactly what the
policy will do. That such questions are still open is a pretty clear
sign the draft needs more work.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov  9 10:42:35 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:42:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <248EB3C9-23C3-43A2-8598-C3DE47A5CC1D@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:31 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> There are too many open questions about how 2011-1 would work, some
> which have been asked, some which the accelerated time line hasn't
> given us time to think of. I won't rehash the whole argument but I'll
> offer one example:
> 
> Per ARIN President John Curran, APNIC policy 096
> (http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096/prop-096-v001.txt)
> causes ARIN to find APNIC policy "compatible" under draft 2011-1.
> However, 096 says: "It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this
> policy."
> ...
> Does the caveat in 096 mean that NIRs in the APNIC region are not
> obligated to allow their registrants to transfer address to an
> ARIN-region registrant even as ARIN is obligated to permit transfers
> to their registrants from ARIN holdings? Without having received an
> authoritative answer from APNIC leadership we can only speculate.
> 
> We shouldn't still be speculating about the effect of a draft during
> last call. By now there should be little doubt as to exactly what the
> policy will do. That such questions are still open is a pretty clear
> sign the draft needs more work.

Bill - 

Note that a request has been sent to APNIC for clarification on this 
point, but that is secondary to the nature of draft policy.  The draft
policy requires that ARIN maintain awareness of the state of policy in
the other RIRs, and when such policy is "compatible, needs-based", we 
will allow transfers and when it is not, we won't.  

So, if the clarification that returns from APNIC states that NIR policy
will not conflict in this area, then we will allow InterRIR transfers.
If the response says otherwise, or the policy changes to conflict, then
transfers will not be allowed.   I do not believe that it is possible to
know with certainty the full effect of any inter-RIR policy since policy
in other RIRs is subject to asynchronous change.  The best we can do is
establish conditions that are compatible with our policy goals, and then
process accordingly.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From sethm at rollernet.us  Wed Nov  9 12:25:37 2011
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:25:37 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <4EBAB791.5040508@rollernet.us>

On 11/7/11 3:11 PM, Robert Seastrom wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
> 
> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
> 
> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
> 


Oppose.

~Seth


From info at arin.net  Wed Nov  9 13:51:33 2011
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:51:33 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>

Below is a revised staff and legal assessment for 2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR 
Transfers.

The draft policy text is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


##*##


ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT 2011-1 (Revised)

Draft Policy:  2011-1 ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers

Date of Assessment:  9 Nov 2011

1.  Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)

This revised proposal directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to 
Specified Recipients" to allow specified transfers to or from 
organizations in other regions, and it eliminates the single aggregate 
language.

2. Comments

_A.    ARIN Staff Comments_

?The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically 
defined. If adopted, staff would consider a "compatible, needs-based 
policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that 
requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, 
and to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.

?Allowing the transfer of number resources between RIRs will require 
careful coordination between RIRs in order to avoid reverse DNS zone 
fragmentation and synchronization problems.The ability to maintain the 
necessary coordination between RIRs is unproven if Inter-RIR transfers 
become extremely common.

?This proposal doesn't have any provisions to preclude organizations 
that have recently obtained IPv4 resources from ARIN from immediately 
releasing them for profit to a specified recipient. This policy may 
provide incentive for organizations to game the system by obtaining 
resources based on justified need, when the real intent is to sell them 
for profit. This behavior would directly violate certain terms and 
conditions of the RSA, but may be difficult for staff to distinguish 
from bona fide changes in circumstances.

?General Staff Implementation Plan:

*For transfers from the ARIN region into another RIR region:*

1.ARIN receives the transfer request template from the requestor and 
verifies that they are the authorized registrant of the resources.

2.ARIN verifies that the recipient RIR has been confirmed to have a 
compatible needs-based transfer policy and then forwards the request to 
the recipient RIR.

3.The Recipient RIR determines if the recipient meets its relevant 
policies.

4.The Recipient RIR confirms to ARIN that the customer has met its 
transfer policy as a recipient, and asks ARIN to authorize the release 
of the resource to the recipient RIR.

5.ARIN coordinates with the Recipient RIR to complete the transfer.

*For transfers into the ARIN region from another RIR region:*

1.ARIN receives the transfer request template from the source RIR 
verifying that their customer is authorized to submit the transfer.

2.ARIN contacts the proposed resource recipient to gather initial data 
needed to justify the 8.3 transfer and obtains a signed RSA from the 
resource recipient.

3.ARIN applies its relevant policy criteria to the resource recipient

4.When ready to approve, ARIN will contact the source RIR and have them 
authorize the release of the resource to ARIN.

5.ARIN approves the transfer, receives transfer fee payment from the 
recipient, and will then complete the request by coordinating with the 
source RIR on the final transfer of the resource into the ARIN database 
(and de-registration from the source database), including the DNS zone 
coordination.

_B.ARIN General Counsel Comments_

Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.

3.Resource Impact

This policy would have major**resource impact from an implementation 
aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 9-12 
months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following 
would be needed in order to implement:

-Careful coordination between the RIRs on DNS issues and updates

-Updated guidelines

-Staff training

4.Draft Policy 2011-1 Text

8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients

In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may 
be?released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, 
in?whole or in part, for transfer to another specified 
organizational?recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive 
transferred?number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need 
for such?resources in the amount which they can justify under current 
ARIN policies.

IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in 
another?RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's 
RIR,?according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may 
take?place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share 
compatible,?needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in 
blocks of?/24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of 
the?recipient RIR.

Timetable for implementation: Upon ratification by the ARIN Board of 
Trustees

Note from the AC:

The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the 
ARIN?XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 
Inter-RIR?Transfers. While there were concerns regarding the presented 
wording,?there was significant continued support for a policy 
enabling?Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from 
organizations able?to make them available to any organization with valid 
requirements.

In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not 
be?cleanly inserted into the NRPM. The following is new language 
that?directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" 
to?allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.

The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 
policy?language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the 
authorized?resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be 
transferred to a?specified recipient. The second sentence was 
reorganized to emphasize?that it applies to an organization within the 
ARIN region that will?receive such a specified transfer, and to 
eliminate the single aggregate?language per 2011-10 which is also being 
sent to last call.

The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a 
specified?recipient in another RIR's service region. This language 
specifies that?such recipients justify their need to their RIR, 
following that RIR's?policies. ARIN will verify that there is a 
compatible needs based?policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate 
the need of the recipient?and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. 
Implicit in the intent of?the language presented and in conformance with 
statements made, the size?of the block to be transferred is identified 
as /24 or larger, for?obvious practical reasons.

In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose 
to?forward this version to last call. Concerns expressed by 
some?stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are 
being?considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by 
ARIN?staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were 
to?occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.




On 10/19/11 3:11 PM, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to
> send an amended version of the following draft policy to an extended 
> last call:
>
>   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
>
> The AC provided the following statement:
>
> ********
> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN
> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR
> Transfers.  While there were concerns regarding the presented wording,
> there was significant continued support for a policy enabling
> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations 
> able to make them available to any organization with valid requirements.
>
> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be
> cleanly inserted into the NRPM.  The following is new language that
> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to
> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.
>
> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy
> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized
> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a
> specified recipient.  The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize
> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will
> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate
> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call.
>
> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified
> recipient in another RIR's service region.  This language specifies that
> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's
> policies.  ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based
> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient
> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of
> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size
> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for
> obvious practical reasons.
>
> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to
> forward this version to last call.  Concerns expressed by some
> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being
> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN
> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to
> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.
>
> The AC thanks everyone in the community for their help in crafting this
> important policy and for your statements of support or other comments
> during Last Call.
> ********
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-1 will
> expire on 16 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their 
> last call review.
>
> The draft policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1
> ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
>
> Date/version: 14 October 2011
>
> Policy statement:
>
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
>
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in
> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
> recipient.  Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN 
> policies.
>
> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
> recipient RIR.
>
> Timetable for implementation: immediate


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111109/b5cd7bbd/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Nov  9 14:19:12 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:19:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVuYpKKaQKypuNzHo=8ngD21VBp_Thk2JifuPoeUMXh7A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Requesting two points of clarification:

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:51 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> ?????? The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically
> defined. ?If adopted, staff would consider a ?compatible, needs-based
> policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that
> requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, and
> to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.

Consider a situation in which an RIR has a general transfer policy
which requires a recipient to have and demonstrate operational need
for address space but, for one reason or another, said policy is
inapplicable to one specific transfer. I imagine that staff would
analyze the situation one of three ways:

1. The RIR's transfer policy is not compatible because it contains
exceptions to needs-based analysis.

2. The specific transfer is prohibited because it does not fall under
transfers governed by the RIR's needs-based policy.

3. The RIR's transfer policy is compatible and ARIN permits the
specific transfer.

Which is correct? Or is there another resolution that I've overlooked?



> ????? B.? ARIN General Counsel Comments
>
> ?Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.

This is... vague. I know I haven't a clue what it's supposed to mean.
Could council expand on the anticipated impact to ARIN's legal
position?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Wed Nov  9 14:20:27 2011
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:20:27 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <4EBAD27B.9040009@burnttofu.net>

Hi Rob:

Support.  I pretty much agree with Gary Buhrmaster's statement of 10/26 
on this mailing list.

michael

On 11/7/11 3:11 PM, Robert Seastrom wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>
> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
>
> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>
> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From bensons at queuefull.net  Wed Nov  9 14:39:07 2011
From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:39:07 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
Message-ID: <EF69AE29-E222-4A53-8202-3A51C6DC0C67@queuefull.net>

I confirm my SUPPORT for ARIN-2011-1.
-Benson


On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:51 PM, ARIN wrote:

> Below is a revised staff and legal assessment for 2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers.
> 
> The draft policy text is below and available at: 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Communications and Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> 
> ##*##
> 
> 
> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT 2011-1 (Revised)
> 
> Draft Policy:  2011-1 ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
> 
> Date of Assessment:  9 Nov 2011
> 
> 1.  Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)
> 
> This revised proposal directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to allow specified transfers to or from organizations in other regions, and it eliminates the single aggregate language.
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Comments
> 
>      A.    ARIN Staff Comments
> 
> ?      The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically defined.  If adopted, staff would consider a ?compatible, needs-based policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, and to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.
>  
> ?      Allowing the transfer of number resources between RIRs will require careful coordination between RIRs in order to avoid reverse DNS zone fragmentation and synchronization problems.   The ability to maintain the necessary coordination between RIRs is unproven if Inter-RIR transfers become extremely common.
>  
> ?      This proposal doesn?t have any provisions to preclude organizations that have recently obtained IPv4 resources from ARIN from immediately releasing them for profit to a specified recipient. This policy may provide incentive for organizations to game the system by obtaining resources based on justified need, when the real intent is to sell them for profit. This behavior would directly violate certain terms and conditions of the RSA, but may be difficult for staff to distinguish from bona fide changes in circumstances.   
>  
> ?      General Staff Implementation Plan:
> 
> For transfers from the ARIN region into another RIR region:
> 
> 1.     ARIN receives the transfer request template from the requestor and verifies that they are the authorized registrant of the resources.
> 2.     ARIN verifies that the recipient RIR has been confirmed to have a compatible needs-based transfer policy and then forwards the request to the recipient RIR.
> 3.     The Recipient RIR determines if the recipient meets its relevant policies.
> 4.     The Recipient RIR confirms to ARIN that the customer has met its transfer policy as a recipient, and asks ARIN to authorize the release of the resource to the recipient RIR.
> 5.     ARIN coordinates with the Recipient RIR to complete the transfer.
> 
> For transfers into the ARIN region from another RIR region:
> 
> 1.     ARIN receives the transfer request template from the source RIR verifying that their customer is authorized to submit the transfer.
> 2.     ARIN contacts the proposed resource recipient to gather initial data needed to justify the 8.3 transfer and obtains a signed RSA from the resource recipient.
> 3.     ARIN applies its relevant policy criteria to the resource recipient
> 4.     When ready to approve, ARIN will contact the source RIR and have them authorize the release of the resource to ARIN.
> 5.     ARIN approves the transfer, receives transfer fee payment from the recipient, and will then complete the request by coordinating with the source RIR on the final transfer of the resource into the ARIN database (and de-registration from the source database), including the DNS zone coordination.
>  
>  
> 
>       B.  ARIN General Counsel Comments
> 
>  Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.    
> 
>  
> 
> 3.  Resource Impact
> 
> This policy would have major resource impact from an implementation aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 9-12 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:
> 
> -   Careful coordination between the RIRs on DNS issues and updates
> -   Updated guidelines
> -   Staff training
> 
>  
> 
> 4.  Draft Policy 2011-1 Text
> 
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> 
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in
> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
> recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> 
> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
> recipient RIR.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Upon ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees
> 
> Note from the AC:
> 
> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN
> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR
> Transfers. While there were concerns regarding the presented wording,
> there         was significant continued support for a policy enabling
> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able
> to make them available to any organization with valid requirements.
> 
> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be
> cleanly inserted into the NRPM. The following is new language that
> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to
> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.
> 
> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy
> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized
> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a
> specified recipient. The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize
> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will
> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate
> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call.
> 
> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified
> recipient in another RIR's service region. This language specifies that
> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's
> policies. ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based
> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient
> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of
> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size
> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for
> obvious practical reasons.
> 
> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to
> forward this version to last call. Concerns expressed by some
> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being
> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN
> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to
> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/19/11 3:11 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> 
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to 
>> send an amended version of the following draft policy to an extended last call: 
>> 
>>   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers 
>> 
>> The AC provided the following statement: 
>> 
>> ******** 
>> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN 
>> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR 
>> Transfers.  While there were concerns regarding the presented wording, 
>> there was significant continued support for a policy enabling 
>> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able to make them available to any organization with valid requirements. 
>> 
>> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be 
>> cleanly inserted into the NRPM.  The following is new language that 
>> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to 
>> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions. 
>> 
>> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy 
>> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized 
>> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a 
>> specified recipient.  The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize 
>> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will 
>> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate 
>> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call. 
>> 
>> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified 
>> recipient in another RIR's service region.  This language specifies that 
>> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's 
>> policies.  ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based 
>> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient 
>> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of 
>> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size 
>> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for 
>> obvious practical reasons. 
>> 
>> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to 
>> forward this version to last call.  Concerns expressed by some 
>> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being 
>> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN 
>> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to 
>> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended. 
>> 
>> The AC thanks everyone in the community for their help in crafting this 
>> important policy and for your statements of support or other comments 
>> during Last Call. 
>> ******** 
>> 
>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should 
>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-1 will 
>> expire on 16 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review. 
>> 
>> The draft policy text is below and available at: 
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ 
>> 
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: 
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Communications and Member Services 
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
>> 
>> 
>> ## * ## 
>> 
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 
>> ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers 
>> 
>> Date/version: 14 October 2011 
>> 
>> Policy statement: 
>> 
>> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients 
>> 
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be 
>> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in 
>> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational 
>> recipient.  Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred 
>> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such 
>> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies. 
>> 
>> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another 
>> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR, 
>> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take 
>> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible, 
>> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of 
>> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the 
>> recipient RIR. 
>> 
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111109/6b1ca007/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov  9 14:49:35 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:49:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVuYpKKaQKypuNzHo=8ngD21VBp_Thk2JifuPoeUMXh7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVuYpKKaQKypuNzHo=8ngD21VBp_Thk2JifuPoeUMXh7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F48CAFD5-CE9C-4A82-A999-CECD8FDD74A1@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 9, 2011, at 2:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Requesting two points of clarification:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:51 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> ?      The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically
>> defined.  If adopted, staff would consider a ?compatible, needs-based
>> policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that
>> requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, and
>> to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.
> 
> Consider a situation in which an RIR has a general transfer policy
> which requires a recipient to have and demonstrate operational need
> for address space but, for one reason or another, said policy is
> inapplicable to one specific transfer. I imagine that staff would
> analyze the situation one of three ways:
> 
> 1. The RIR's transfer policy is not compatible because it contains
> exceptions to needs-based analysis.
> 
> 2. The specific transfer is prohibited because it does not fall under
> transfers governed by the RIR's needs-based policy.
> 
> 3. The RIR's transfer policy is compatible and ARIN permits the
> specific transfer.
> 
> Which is correct? Or is there another resolution that I've overlooked?

In the hypothetical, if there were policy such that the other RIR 
could approve some recipients by applying needs-based criteria and
approve other recipients without apply a needs-based criteria, then 
that RIR policy would compatible for transfers only for those recipient
for which needs-based criteria apply.

Your example specific transfer fails, since the criteria for demonstrating 
operational need is, for one reason or another, inapplicable.

In implementation, we're required to confirm that other RIR has a 
compatible needs-based transfer policy which will apply to the
transfer request.

The Recipient RIR determines if the recipient meets that policy 
as a recipient and confirms the result to ARIN.


>>       B.  ARIN General Counsel Comments
>> 
>>  Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.
> 
> This is... vague. I know I haven't a clue what it's supposed to mean.
> Could council expand on the anticipated impact to ARIN's legal
> position?

I can elaborate: Any policy which reduces the probability of potential 
litigants against ARIN improves our legal position.  While this should not 
drive policy formation (since anyone can litigate for specious cause), it
is a benefit when it occurs.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN







From asjl at ecs.vuw.ac.nz  Wed Nov  9 19:20:37 2011
From: asjl at ecs.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:20:37 +1300
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EBB18D5.40508@ecs.vuw.ac.nz>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:31 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>
> ARIN doesn't use National Internet Registries (NIRs). LIRs (ISPs) and
> large or multihomed end-users register addresses directly with ARIN.
> APNIC prefers to create NIRs, country-level registries, and then have
> LIRs and end-users register addresses there instead.
>

I'd be wary of characterising the structure in the APNIC region as
"APNIC prefers to create NIRs...". I don't believe that this is correct.
There are NIRs in the APNIC region but many economies do not have such
an entity e.g. Australia, New Zealand, India (although they are seeking
to create one). Several of the NIRs have been around for many years and
predate APNIC (see the list of founding members at
http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/history-of-apnic/apnic-founding-members
).

The NIRs serve a very useful function in this region where English is
not the first language for many of our members and allow people in those
countries that have them to deal with their number registry in their
native language and in a particular cultural framework. It's worth
remembering that in the ARIN region which has a different set of
cultural and language constraints.

> Does the caveat in 096 mean that NIRs in the APNIC region are not
> obligated to allow their registrants to transfer address to an
> ARIN-region registrant even as ARIN is obligated to permit transfers
> to their registrants from ARIN holdings? Without having received an
> authoritative answer from APNIC leadership we can only speculate.
>

I'd very wary of interpreting Clause 7 of prop-096 as an attempt to
create some loophole to thwart transfer policy. Every policy proposal
that comes before the APNIC Policy SIG has a clause 7 - "Effect on the
RIRs" and this usually reads something like "This will affect NIR
members in the same way as APNIC members."

In this case the authors have chosen to use the phrase Bill has pointed
out, "It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this policy". I can
recall no discussion on this at the two meetings where this policy was
discussed, nor was it raised on the mailing list as an issue and I
believe that this is something that has got through our sanity filters
undetected.

I think it's worth noting that the APNIC policy document "NIR Criteria"
(http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria/text) has the following clear
sections:

2.3	Policy framework

	All NIRs operate within the policy framework of the APNIC
	region and of the wider global Internet community, and should
	implement and enforce regional and global policies at all
	times.

	An NIR may implement local policies, however these should not
	conflict in any way with regional or global policies. Any
	substantial policy change proposed within an NIR?s community
	should be brought to the APNIC community for approval through
	existing open policymaking mechanisms.


2.4	Local procedures

	NIRs are expected to implement operational procedures which
	suit the specific conditions of the environment in which they
	operate, and they should have maximum flexibility and
	autonomy in the development of those procedures. However such
	procedures must be consistent with APNIC operational
	requirements, as detailed below.


So while there's some possibility that this clause *could* be used to
modify this transfer policy in some radical way by an NIR, I think it's
highly unlikely.

I'm happy to raise this for clarification with the APNIC Policy SIG but
I don't believe that this should be used as a mechanism to derail the
current discussions in your region. There may be reasons for ARIN
members to have reservations about transfer policy but I don't believe
this is one of them.

Andy Linton
APNIC Policy SIG Chair




From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Wed Nov  9 19:47:29 2011
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:47:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8esvvkscwx8BZT9K-Esi8paRseu+C+5=7Y7OxwRBJvJeA@mail.gmail.com>

I also oppose.


On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:31 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Robert Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
>> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th,
>> which is at 1600 EST. ?To make sure your voice is heard, please
>> respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on
>> Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>
> OPPOSE as written. Would like to see it returned to the AC's docket.
>
> There are too many open questions about how 2011-1 would work, some
> which have been asked, some which the accelerated time line hasn't
> given us time to think of. I won't rehash the whole argument but I'll
> offer one example:
>
> Per ARIN President John Curran, APNIC policy 096
> (http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096/prop-096-v001.txt)
> causes ARIN to find APNIC policy "compatible" under draft 2011-1.
> However, 096 says: "It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this
> policy."
>
> ARIN doesn't use National Internet Registries (NIRs). LIRs (ISPs) and
> large or multihomed end-users register addresses directly with ARIN.
> APNIC prefers to create NIRs, country-level registries, and then have
> LIRs and end-users register addresses there instead.
>
> Does the caveat in 096 mean that NIRs in the APNIC region are not
> obligated to allow their registrants to transfer address to an
> ARIN-region registrant even as ARIN is obligated to permit transfers
> to their registrants from ARIN holdings? Without having received an
> authoritative answer from APNIC leadership we can only speculate.
>
> We shouldn't still be speculating about the effect of a draft during
> last call. By now there should be little doubt as to exactly what the
> policy will do. That such questions are still open is a pretty clear
> sign the draft needs more work.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov  9 23:20:07 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 04:20:07 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <4EBB18D5.40508@ecs.vuw.ac.nz>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBB18D5.40508@ecs.vuw.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <0B3FC5C9-41D9-4CC3-AAAD-B47BEE52B28E@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 9, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Andy Linton wrote:

> I'd very wary of interpreting Clause 7 of prop-096 as an attempt to
> create some loophole to thwart transfer policy. Every policy proposal
> that comes before the APNIC Policy SIG has a clause 7 - "Effect on the
> RIRs" and this usually reads something like "This will affect NIR
> members in the same way as APNIC members."
> 
> In this case the authors have chosen to use the phrase Bill has pointed
> out, "It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this policy". I can
> recall no discussion on this at the two meetings where this policy was
> discussed, nor was it raised on the mailing list as an issue and I
> believe that this is something that has got through our sanity filters
> undetected.
> 
> I think it's worth noting that the APNIC policy document "NIR Criteria"
> (http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria/text) has the following clear
> sections:
> 
> 2.3	Policy framework
> 
> 	All NIRs operate within the policy framework of the APNIC
> 	region and of the wider global Internet community, and should
> 	implement and enforce regional and global policies at all
> 	times.
> 
> 	An NIR may implement local policies, however these should not
> 	conflict in any way with regional or global policies. Any
> 	substantial policy change proposed within an NIR?s community
> 	should be brought to the APNIC community for approval through
> 	existing open policymaking mechanisms.
> 
> ...
> 
> So while there's some possibility that this clause *could* be used to
> modify this transfer policy in some radical way by an NIR, I think it's
> highly unlikely.
> 
> I'm happy to raise this for clarification with the APNIC Policy SIG but
> I don't believe that this should be used as a mechanism to derail the
> current discussions in your region. There may be reasons for ARIN
> members to have reservations about transfer policy but I don't believe
> this is one of them.
> 
> Andy Linton
> APNIC Policy SIG Chair

Andy - 
 
   Your explanation is very helpful - Thanks!

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From lear at cisco.com  Thu Nov 10 02:49:38 2011
From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:49:38 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <4EBB8212.7030104@cisco.com>

Robert,

I oppose 2011-1, as written.

It is crucial that regions where IPv4 is not widely as diffused as 
elsewhere not be pushed from back to the front of the IPv6 deployment 
pack for want of IPv4 addresses.  Shifting resources into the ARIN 
region increases just such a risk.  To correct this concern, the AC 
should split the proposal into two- one for outbound transfers and one 
for inbound, where I would have no objection to outbound transfers.  
Even better would be to stop tinkering with v4 allocation policies 
altogether and focus on IPv6 deployment.

I speak only for myself and not for my employer on this matter (although 
management at employer have made public statements similar to the last 
sentence in the above paragraph).

Eliot Lear


On 11/8/11 12:11 AM, Robert Seastrom wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
>
> Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did not make a clear statement.
>
> 2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an opinion on it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether you support or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
>
> We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 16th, which is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, November 16th 2011.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Nov 10 06:25:29 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:25:29 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

All,

We keep hearing about the differences in current (last call)language of
DP 2011-1 from that presented at the Philadelphia PPM.  And, how that
change took place just hours after the PPM meeting and just hours before
the AC meeting, and again IN the AC meeting.  That is all very
true....and true to the mission of the AC in supporting community policy
development.

What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.

Earlier I asked persons objecting to the last call language to provide
specifics about how the newly crafted language of 2011-1 varies from the
objectives and intent of the flawed language of 2011-1 presented in
Philadelphia. I did not get any explicit answers.  I ask for the same
again. 

The objectives for DP 2011-1 were pointed out in the Philly presentation
and were a composite of feedback and suggestions that were offered by
the community on PPML and at the Puerto Rico PPM.  I list them here with
a link reference to the presentation from Philly.

The objective from Page 3 of my presentation ...
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm.html
The intent is to expand the existing NRPM 8.3 Specified Transfer Policy
to give those wishing to transfer IPv4 addresses more flexibility in
their transfers

>From Page 8 of my presentation....
It[the DP language] is explicit about... 
in or out of region,
that transfers are between RIRs that support needs-based policies, 
that RIRs have to agree, 
that parties meet all of both RIR policies 
that it is needs based, and the need is for a networking purpose, 
that the receiving RIR is entitled to the addresses

For reference I am attaching the language from the meeting presentation
AND as revised and sent to last call...

Ill formed DP text presented at the meeting:
Address resources may be transferred in or out of the ARIN region to
those who demonstrate need and plan to deploy them for a networking
purpose within 3 months. Such transfers will take place between RIRs who
share compatible, needs-based policies supporting entities agreeing to
the transfer and which otherwise meet both RIR's policies. Transferred
resources will become part of the resource holdings of the recipient RIR
unless otherwise agreed by both RIRs.

Revised DP text sent to last call:
IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
/24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
recipient RIR

Note that the language is more specific about the policy being about
IPv4 and that both RIR policies are to be complied with.  It is also
explicit about block size which corresponds with expected minimum
routing policies which was assumed in the presented text.

Please indicate what has changed that makes this some 'new' draft policy
rather than a re-wording of the 'same' DP?

Bill Darte
Shepherd, DP 2011-1




 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Sandiford
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 8:57 PM
> To: Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in 
> Last Call)?
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I've stayed out of the PPML debate on this one so far, but 
> I'm going to take a moment now and give everyone my thoughts.
> 
> First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I want to 
> put something on the record.  I, speaking for myself 
> personally, do not like the idea of Inter-RIR transfers at 
> all.  The reasons why are irrelevant to this discussion so I 
> won't go into them here.
> 
> That being said, my duty as an AC member is to work 
> productively on policies that are desired by the community 
> whether or not they align with my personal views.  This is 
> one of those cases where my personal views do not align with 
> the will of the community so I have "checked my personal 
> views at the door".  It is clear that the community wants an 
> Inter-RIR transfer policy and I will work hard to ensure that 
> it is done properly.
> 
> Now on to this policy itself.
> 
> I believe that as part of the process, any policy text that 
> gets implemented should go before the community at a PPM.  
> The current text has never seen a PPM, and if the current 
> course is stayed it never will.  In fact, the current policy 
> text, in its entirety, was drafted by an AC Member less than 
> 24 hours before it was advanced to last call.  As an AC 
> Member, I only saw this text a few hours before I was asked 
> to vote on it.
>  This seems very very wrong to me.
> 
> If this was text that was merely revised I might be able to 
> support this.
> But this is not *revised* text, this is *completely 
> rewritten* text.  Not a single sentence from a version 
> presented at any PPM is in this text.
> 
> Not only has the text been re-written, but it has changed 
> sections too.
> 
> I won't go out as far as others have to say that this is an 
> "end run" on the PDP, but I certainly believe that a 100% 
> revision by the AC at last call is beyond my interpretation 
> of the *spirit* of the PDP.  I will however note that it is 
> my opinion only.
> 
> For all of the reasons above, I do NOT support the policy as 
> it stands now in last call.  I believe this policy needs to 
> stay on the docket to be cleaned up, presented at the next 
> PPM, and then adopted (assuming the community wishes for it 
> to be at that time).
> 
> Regards,
> Bill
> 
> On 11-11-07 6:11 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct 
> >people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
> >
> >Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did 
> not make a 
> >clear statement.
> >
> >2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an 
> opinion on 
> >it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message 
> >and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether 
> you support 
> >or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
> >
> >We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 
> 16th, which 
> >is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no 
> >later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, 
> November 16th 2011.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >-r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >PPML
> >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN 
> >Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 


From farmer at umn.edu  Thu Nov 10 11:22:20 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:22:20 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <4EBB8212.7030104@cisco.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<4EBB8212.7030104@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <4EBBFA3C.5000000@umn.edu>



On 11/10/11 01:49 CST, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Robert,
>
> I oppose 2011-1, as written.
>
> It is crucial that regions where IPv4 is not widely as diffused as
> elsewhere not be pushed from back to the front of the IPv6 deployment
> pack for want of IPv4 addresses. Shifting resources into the ARIN region
> increases just such a risk. To correct this concern, the AC should split
> the proposal into two- one for outbound transfers and one for inbound,
> where I would have no objection to outbound transfers. Even better would
> be to stop tinkering with v4 allocation policies altogether and focus on
> IPv6 deployment.

Personally, I'm not opposed to only allowing outbound transfers. 
However, I believe the community's clear consensus is to reciprocally 
allow transfers both inbound to and outbound form the region.  Also, in 
my opinion such a split would be a significant enough change in the 
policy intent necessitating a return to the next PPM for further 
discussion, further delaying an Inter-RIR transfer policy and probably 
causing the issue you hope to prevent.

Further, with the APNIC free pool essentially exhausted, several month 
ago.  And with, the APNIC policy community acting in good faith, 
restoring "needs basis" to their transfer policy, and acceding to the 
ARIN policy community's request, some may say insistent demand, that 
Inter-RIR transfers be on a "needs basis".

Furthermore, with ARIN likely having a free pool for several more policy 
cycles, likely delaying any significant demand for inbound transfers for 
several more policy cycles.  This allows us plenty of time to act to 
remove inbound Inter-RIR transfers, if there is consensus to do so, 
before there should be any significant demand for inbound transfers

Therefore, it is imperative for the ARiN policy community to act NOW in 
good faith and allow Inter-RIR transfers as soon as reasonably possible. 
This is best accomplished by moving forward the Last Call text that 
clearly represents the policy intent that has been discussed, and there 
has been a clear consensus for, at the last two Public Policy meetings 
and on PPML since its introduction as ARIN-prop-119 over a year ago.

Any further delay is unlikely to produce significantly better text and 
will only serve to prevent clearly legitimate "needs based" demand from 
within the APNIC region for IPv4 addresses from having any chance at all 
of being fulfilled, endangering the Internet as a whole.  Allowing 
Inter-RIR transfers cannot and will not guarantee all the legitimate 
"needs based" demand will be fulfilled. However, Inter-RIR transfers 
will allow a possible option to fulfill at least some additional 
legitimate "needs based" demand within the Internet as a whole.  Even 
though that legitimate "needs based" demand may not be within the ARIN 
region, it is in the self-interest of the ARIN community to allow 
continued growth of the whole IPv4 Internet to the extent possible for 
as long as possible.

It has been the ARIN policy community's consensus and insistent demand 
that all transfers be on a "needs basis", and as said, the APNIC policy 
community is acceding to that demand.  It is inconsistent with that 
consensus and insistent demand to continue to delay an Inter-RIR 
transfer policy in the ARIN region while legitimate "needs based" demand 
goes unfulfilled anywhere on the Internet and especially in the APNIC 
region.

As for the request to focus on deployment of IPv6, I couldn't agree 
more.  However, drastically different availability of IPv4 resources 
across the RIRs and the Internet as a whole doesn't serve the deployment 
of IPv6.  To the contrary, I believe it does more to promote the 
deployment of Carrier Grade NAT.  So the idea of leaving IPv4 policy 
alone doesn't necessarily serve IPv6 deployment, and worse could 
frustrate global IPv6 deployment altogether.

Finally, I support the policy as written.

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com  Thu Nov 10 11:30:17 2011
From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:30:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers -
	Revised	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>

Along with the majority vote at the last conference.  I support this proposal.

Marla

________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:52 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised Assessment

Below is a revised staff and legal assessment for 2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers.

The draft policy text is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/>

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


##*##


ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT 2011-1 (Revised)
Draft Policy:  2011-1 ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
Date of Assessment:  9 Nov 2011
1.  Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)
This revised proposal directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to allow specified transfers to or from organizations in other regions, and it eliminates the single aggregate language.
2. Comments
     A.    ARIN Staff Comments

<!--[if !supportLists]-->?      <!--[endif]-->The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically defined.  If adopted, staff would consider a ?compatible, needs-based policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, and to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->?      <!--[endif]-->Allowing the transfer of number resources between RIRs will require careful coordination between RIRs in order to avoid reverse DNS zone fragmentation and synchronization problems.   The ability to maintain the necessary coordination between RIRs is unproven if Inter-RIR transfers become extremely common.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->?      <!--[endif]-->This proposal doesn?t have any provisions to preclude organizations that have recently obtained IPv4 resources from ARIN from immediately releasing them for profit to a specified recipient. This policy may provide incentive for organizations to game the system by obtaining resources based on justified need, when the real intent is to sell them for profit. This behavior would directly violate certain terms and conditions of the RSA, but may be difficult for staff to distinguish from bona fide changes in circumstances.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->?      <!--[endif]-->General Staff Implementation Plan:
For transfers from the ARIN region into another RIR region:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN receives the transfer request template from the requestor and verifies that they are the authorized registrant of the resources.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN verifies that the recipient RIR has been confirmed to have a compatible needs-based transfer policy and then forwards the request to the recipient RIR.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.     <!--[endif]-->The Recipient RIR determines if the recipient meets its relevant policies.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.     <!--[endif]-->The Recipient RIR confirms to ARIN that the customer has met its transfer policy as a recipient, and asks ARIN to authorize the release of the resource to the recipient RIR.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN coordinates with the Recipient RIR to complete the transfer.
For transfers into the ARIN region from another RIR region:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN receives the transfer request template from the source RIR verifying that their customer is authorized to submit the transfer.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN contacts the proposed resource recipient to gather initial data needed to justify the 8.3 transfer and obtains a signed RSA from the resource recipient.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN applies its relevant policy criteria to the resource recipient

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.     <!--[endif]-->When ready to approve, ARIN will contact the source RIR and have them authorize the release of the resource to ARIN.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.     <!--[endif]-->ARIN approves the transfer, receives transfer fee payment from the recipient, and will then complete the request by coordinating with the source RIR on the final transfer of the resource into the ARIN database (and de-registration from the source database), including the DNS zone coordination.
      B.  ARIN General Counsel Comments
 Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.
3.  Resource Impact
This policy would have major resource impact from an implementation aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 9-12 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-   <!--[endif]-->Careful coordination between the RIRs on DNS issues and updates

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-   <!--[endif]-->Updated guidelines

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-   <!--[endif]-->Staff training
4.  Draft Policy 2011-1 Text
8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in
whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
/24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
recipient RIR.
Timetable for implementation: Upon ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees
Note from the AC:
The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN
XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR
Transfers. While there were concerns regarding the presented wording,
there was significant continued support for a policy enabling
Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able
to make them available to any organization with valid requirements.
In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be
cleanly inserted into the NRPM. The following is new language that
directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to
allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.
The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy
language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized
resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a
specified recipient. The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize
that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will
receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate
language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call.
The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified
recipient in another RIR's service region. This language specifies that
such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's
policies. ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based
policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient
and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of
the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size
of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for
obvious practical reasons.
In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to
forward this version to last call. Concerns expressed by some
stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being
considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN
staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to
occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.



On 10/19/11 3:11 PM, ARIN wrote:
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to
send an amended version of the following draft policy to an extended last call:

  ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers

The AC provided the following statement:

********
The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN
XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR
Transfers.  While there were concerns regarding the presented wording,
there was significant continued support for a policy enabling
Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able to make them available to any organization with valid requirements.

In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be
cleanly inserted into the NRPM.  The following is new language that
directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to
allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.

The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy
language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized
resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a
specified recipient.  The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize
that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will
receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate
language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call.

The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified
recipient in another RIR's service region.  This language specifies that
such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's
policies.  ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based
policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient
and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of
the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size
of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for
obvious practical reasons.

In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to
forward this version to last call.  Concerns expressed by some
stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being
considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN
staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to
occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.

The AC thanks everyone in the community for their help in crafting this
important policy and for your statements of support or other comments
during Last Call.
********

Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-1 will
expire on 16 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review.

The draft policy text is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1
ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers

Date/version: 14 October 2011

Policy statement:

8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients

In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in
whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
recipient.  Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.

IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
/24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
recipient RIR.

Timetable for implementation: immediate



________________________________
This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/ba7a3330/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 12:01:56 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:01:56 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers -	Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

Along with the majority vote at the last conference.  I support this proposal.

For clarity, there were two calls for show of support at the Philly
meeting related to ARIN-2011-1.  Both had majority support; I am
including them here so that the community has ready access to
the referenced information:

The first was "Those in favor in principle to interregional transfers"
with 124 people present & remote; the results were 53 in favor and
1 against.

The second was "Those in favor of moving 2011-1 to last call and
making such corrections as may be necessary" with 124 people
present & remote; the results were 24 in favor and 17 against.

Minutes of the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting are available here:
<https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html>

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/eb06ce22/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 12:09:17 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:09:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
>
> Along with the majority vote at the last conference.? I support this
> proposal.
>
> For clarity, there were two calls for show of support at the Philly
> meeting related to ARIN-2011-1. ?Both had majority support; I am
> including them here so that the community has ready access to
> the referenced?information:
> The first was "Those in favor in principle to interregional transfers"
> with 124 people present & remote; the results were 53 in favor?and
> 1 against.
> The second was "Those in favor of?moving 2011-1 to last call and
> making?such corrections as may be necessary" with 124 people
> present & remote;?the results were 24 in favor and 17 against.
> Minutes of the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting are available here:
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html>


To further clarify that, the intent as presented was moving to last
call "with tweaks". Not a rewrite of the entire proposal.

Best,

-M<


From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 12:10:14 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:10:14 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> All,
>

[ clip ]

>
> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.


The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to stop
distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process was
broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call with
"tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.

Vint summarized it best:

Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue, Mr. Chairman, is
I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory Council could
continue to work on it is if we all voted to ? in favor of this with
some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little undefined.  That's
what I'm concerned about. "

>From the transcripts:

    https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12

[ from where we start to form "the question" ]

Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong.  Do
we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.

The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor it
being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language
tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can put your
hands down.

Those against the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last
call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory Council putting
this to last call.

Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification. Based on what Owen
had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or not this
got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going back
with tweaks.  They're different somehow.

Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it would be in
another cycle of work.

Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.

Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have ? no.  I don't want
anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of clarity.

Now, is the vote ? has the vote been taken?  All right.

2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the room voting and
by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call and making such
corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the proposition
were 24; those against were 17.


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 12:23:31 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:23:31 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>> The second was "Those in favor of moving 2011-1 to last call and
>> making such corrections as may be necessary" with 124 people
>> present & remote; the results were 24 in favor and 17 against.
>> Minutes of the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting are available here:
>> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html>
> 
> To further clarify that, the intent as presented was moving to last
> call "with tweaks". Not a rewrite of the entire proposal.

As called by the Chair, the poll was "making such corrections as may 
be necessary".  I agree that the intent of the poll was characterized 
earlier as advancing to last call with "tweaks" or "minor changes"; it
is left to each community member to consider whether making changes to
the text for clarification purposes (as opposed to policy substance) 
was included in the guidance provided to the ARIN AC.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 10 12:46:07 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:46:07 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <4EBB8212.7030104@cisco.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<4EBB8212.7030104@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <D02CCB15-B823-4660-9F34-8285708BE588@delong.com>



Sent from my iPad

On Nov 9, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> I oppose 2011-1, as written.
> 
> It is crucial that regions where IPv4 is not widely as diffused as elsewhere not be pushed from back to the front of the IPv6 deployment pack for want of IPv4 addresses.  Shifting resources into the ARIN region increases just such a risk.  To correct this concern, the AC should split the proposal into two- one for outbound transfers and one for inbound, where I would have no objection to outbound transfers.  Even better would be to stop tinkering with v4 allocation policies altogether and focus on IPv6 deployment.
> 

Eliot,

Presumably such a region would not pass an inter-RIR transfer policy that allows resources to exit their region in that case. The fact that the ARIN policy permits bi-directional transfers does not in any way influence or control what other regions choose to permit with respect to these transfers. As proposed, this policy requires that their transfer policy have a needs-basis, but, otherwise, it is hands-off with regard to the policies of the other regions.

In actual implementation, I'd be very surprised if ARIN resource holders started purchasing addresses from organizations in the regions to which you refer (I'm presuming you mean LACNIC/AfriNIC) rather than obtaining them from the remaining ARIN free pool and/or from other ARIN resource holders. On the other hand, if ARIN resource holders start providing infusions of capital into those regions that fund their IPv6 deployments, is that really such a bad thing overall?

Also speaking only for myself,

Owen



From joe at oregon.uoregon.edu  Thu Nov 10 12:04:13 2011
From: joe at oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
Message-ID: <11111009041351_2BE51@oregon.uoregon.edu>

Hi,

I oppose 2011-1.

Rationale:

-- While I strongly support deployment of IPv6, I believe that IPv4 will
   continue to play an important role for years, if not decades, to come.

-- I recognize and acknowledge the short term needs that exist in some
   regions for more IPv4 address space, most notably APNIC. I'm mindful
   of the NRO address reports showing APNIC demand for 5+ /8's in '08, 
   5+ /8's in '09, 7+ /8's in '10, and 6+ /8's in '11 -- I'd expect that
   if the space were to be available, APNIC would likely be able to 
   justify and use a comparable number of additional /8's in the coming 
   year(s).

   While estimates vary when it comes to usable residual address space 
   per region, even if all residual ARIN space were to be transfered 
   out toward APNIC's immediate requirement, it would likely not even
   meet one additional year's need. Thus, any transfer scheme would 
   represent purely pallative short term aid for APNIC region users. I'm
   sure the additional address space would be appreciated, but it wouldn't
   fix the fundamentally un-meetable demand for new address space from
   that region.

-- I *also* recognize that there are great disparities in the allocation
   of IPv4 address space relative to regional populations.

   When I last did the math, I saw (sorry if you're using non-monospace
   fonts):

   Region      Population         IPv4 /8's        Ratio of %'s
   Asia        4,121,097 60.3%    44.24 31.6%      0.54
   Africa      1,009,893 14.7%     2.29  1.6%      0.112
   Europe        732,206 10.7%    31.42 22.5%      2.103
   L America     528,418  8.5%     6.28  4.5%      0.529
   N America     348,360  5.1%    27.65 19.8%      3.882
   Oceania        35,387  0.5%    (part of APNIC)  
   Total:      6,829,360         139.85

   [Population in thousands, mid year 2009 estimates from the UN; address
   usage from www.nro.net/statistics (Sept 2011).]

   If everything was proportionate, you'd see a 1.0 ratio for each
   region. Obviously, the actual ratios aren't very close to those values.

   In particular, obviously North America and Europe have more address
   space than they should, if everything was strictly proportionate.

   In considering that table, note that while APNIC has one of the lower
   ratios (0.54), it actually already has the largest number of reported 
   IPv4 /8's

   But also note that Africa, with the second largest tranche of the world's
   population, has only a little over *two* /8's, or roughly 11% of the
   number of /8's one might expect.

-- Thus, my overarching concern would be that if additional IPv4 resources
   are transfered out of the ARIN region *now*, in an attempt to meet the 
   short term demand for additional resources in the APNIC region (which,
   recall, already has over 44 /8's), there will quickly be no IPv4 
   resources available for transfer to the AFRINIC region in the 
   *intermediate* term (when that region finally is able to participate 
   more fully in the Internet community as a result of 
   just-recently-improving transoceanic fiber availability).

-- I also understand and sympathize with the desire to "end the suffering"
   and just "finish using up" what IPv4 address space remains, thereby
   forcing the reality of IPv6 upon a reluctant audience, however I'm
   not willing to force a precipitous exhaustion scheme just to "get it
   finally over-and-done-with." Suicide pacts don't make for good public
   policy.

Thanks for considering this input,

Regards,

Joe St Sauver, Ph.D. (joe at oregon.uoregon.edu)

Disclaimer: opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect
the opinion of any organization or other entity.


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 10 13:00:53 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:00:53 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BF0F2E32-5A3E-44F7-B507-80BCBC85ECFF@delong.com>

So we have 24:17 in favor of "moving it to last call with those corrections as
may be necessary." To me, that seems like a good indication that the community
wanted it moved to last call with such corrections as may be necessary.

IMHO, this is not a "King James" rewrite. Most of the text remains the same or very similar. It moves around a little, but, that would have been done by staff to NRPM-ize it had we passed the text from the meeting and it would have been done without community input and in a much less defined manner.

IMHO, this represents a relatively minimal rewording by using a restructuring instead to convey the intended meaning which I believe was clearly communicated by the community on the PPML and at the meeting.

If there were not urgent need for this policy, I would probably agree that running it through another meeting cycle for the sake of more complete community review would be worth while. However, there is urgent need for this policy and everyone at the meeting is able to participate on PPML if they choose to do so. Everyone at the meeting knows that this was likely to get modified and sent to last call from the vote that was taken at the meeting. Between that and the extended last call, postings to NANOG by the ARIN CEO bringing the issue up there, etc. I believe that the community has had ample opportunity to comment on the revised text.

We have a statement from the ARIN CEO that the changes made to the text prior to sending it to last call were appropriate and within the scope of the PDP. If you want to change the PDP, there are mechanisms for doing so. This isn't one of them.

Further, even if the AC sends this to the board next Wednesday, the board will review it for PDP compliance and will not ratify it if they feel that the PDP was not followed.

Continuing to try and distract from a discussion of the merits (or lack) of the current text in favor of focusing on the process is disingenuous at best.

Owen


Sent from my iPad

On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> All,
>> 
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
>> 
>> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
>> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
>> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.
> 
> 
> The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to stop
> distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process was
> broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call with
> "tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.
> 
> Vint summarized it best:
> 
> Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue, Mr. Chairman, is
> I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory Council could
> continue to work on it is if we all voted to ? in favor of this with
> some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little undefined.  That's
> what I'm concerned about. "
> 
>> From the transcripts:
> 
>    https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12
> 
> [ from where we start to form "the question" ]
> 
> Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong.  Do
> we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.
> 
> The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor it
> being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language
> tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can put your
> hands down.
> 
> Those against the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last
> call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory Council putting
> this to last call.
> 
> Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification. Based on what Owen
> had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or not this
> got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going back
> with tweaks.  They're different somehow.
> 
> Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it would be in
> another cycle of work.
> 
> Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.
> 
> Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have ? no.  I don't want
> anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of clarity.
> 
> Now, is the vote ? has the vote been taken?  All right.
> 
> 2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the room voting and
> by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call and making such
> corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the proposition
> were 24; those against were 17.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 10 13:21:07 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:21:07 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <11111009041351_2BE51@oregon.uoregon.edu>
References: <11111009041351_2BE51@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <0A7DA828-2015-455A-A1A5-506FF8E26FD7@delong.com>

> -- I *also* recognize that there are great disparities in the allocation
>   of IPv4 address space relative to regional populations.
> 
>   When I last did the math, I saw (sorry if you're using non-monospace
>   fonts):
> 
>   Region      Population         IPv4 /8's        Ratio of %'s
>   Asia        4,121,097 60.3%    44.24 31.6%      0.54
>   Africa      1,009,893 14.7%     2.29  1.6%      0.112
>   Europe        732,206 10.7%    31.42 22.5%      2.103
>   L America     528,418  8.5%     6.28  4.5%      0.529
>   N America     348,360  5.1%    27.65 19.8%      3.882
>   Oceania        35,387  0.5%    (part of APNIC)  
>   Total:      6,829,360         139.85
> 
>   [Population in thousands, mid year 2009 estimates from the UN; address
>   usage from www.nro.net/statistics (Sept 2011).]
> 
>   If everything was proportionate, you'd see a 1.0 ratio for each
>   region. Obviously, the actual ratios aren't very close to those values.

>   In considering that table, note that while APNIC has one of the lower
>   ratios (0.54), it actually already has the largest number of reported 
>   IPv4 /8's
> 

When you consider that APNIC has more than 4 times the population of
the next most populous region, the fact that they have less than twice
the address space held by north america seems pretty irrelevant to the
argument. Especially when you consider that they have more than 10x
the population of North America. In fact, they have 60.8% of the population
(almost 2/3rds of the world population) and less than 1/3rd of the address
space, while North America is approximately 1/20th of the world population
and holds almost 1/5th of the address space.

The numbers above make a very good case for 2011-1 IMHO.

>   But also note that Africa, with the second largest tranche of the world's
>   population, has only a little over *two* /8's, or roughly 11% of the
>   number of /8's one might expect.
> 
> -- Thus, my overarching concern would be that if additional IPv4 resources
>   are transfered out of the ARIN region *now*, in an attempt to meet the 
>   short term demand for additional resources in the APNIC region (which,
>   recall, already has over 44 /8's), there will quickly be no IPv4 
>   resources available for transfer to the AFRINIC region in the 
>   *intermediate* term (when that region finally is able to participate 
>   more fully in the Internet community as a result of 
>   just-recently-improving transoceanic fiber availability).
> 

I think this is a red herring. If there is a continuing transfer market by
the time AfriNIC runs out, there will be addresses available to them in
that market. If there is not, then, keeping the addresses away from users
in the APNIC region will not in any way help AfriNIC at that time.

> -- I also understand and sympathize with the desire to "end the suffering"
>   and just "finish using up" what IPv4 address space remains, thereby
>   forcing the reality of IPv6 upon a reluctant audience, however I'm
>   not willing to force a precipitous exhaustion scheme just to "get it
>   finally over-and-done-with." Suicide pacts don't make for good public
>   policy.
> 

This isn't about a suicide pact. This is, however, about the damaging
consequences of asynchronous runout. Geoff Huston expresses these
much better than I can, so, I will refer you to his presentations from Busan
and Philadelphia RIR meetings.

Owen



From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 13:35:02 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:35:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The second was "Those in favor of moving 2011-1 to last call and
>>> making such corrections as may be necessary" with 124 people
>>> present & remote; the results were 24 in favor and 17 against.
>>> Minutes of the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting are available here:
>>> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html>
>>
>> To further clarify that, the intent as presented was moving to last
>> call "with tweaks". Not a rewrite of the entire proposal.
>
> As called by the Chair, the poll was "making such corrections as may
> be necessary". ?I agree that the intent of the poll was characterized
> earlier as advancing to last call with "tweaks" or "minor changes"; it
> is left to each community member to consider whether making changes to
> the text for clarification purposes (as opposed to policy substance)
> was included in the guidance provided to the ARIN AC.
>


I reviewed the video of the session this afternoon to clarify. The
question asked and polled was specifically "do we favor it being put
to last call with the advisory council making language tweaks".
Additionally, a participant stood up and clearly asked the meeting
Chair to clarify the question on a wider scale, if we were approving a
rewrite and that a rewrite was totally different than what was being
asked. The meeting Chair opted to keep the focus on language tweaks
and not restate the question. The recording is painfully clear with
respect to intent. Tweaks, not rewrite.

There's little value in continuing to defend the process any longer
and we ought to not waste any more time on it. The AC, or the BoT,
should throw the meeting results out to mitigate this particular issue
and proceed with the list comments as the basis of moving forward or
not instead.


Best,

-M<


From bensons at queuefull.net  Thu Nov 10 13:49:52 2011
From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:49:52 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <0A7DA828-2015-455A-A1A5-506FF8E26FD7@delong.com>
References: <11111009041351_2BE51@oregon.uoregon.edu>
	<0A7DA828-2015-455A-A1A5-506FF8E26FD7@delong.com>
Message-ID: <AC1FCE74-2C03-477D-8BB9-094C5BC38295@queuefull.net>


>>  Region      Population         IPv4 /8's        Ratio of %'s
>>  Asia        4,121,097 60.3%    44.24 31.6%      0.54
>>  Africa      1,009,893 14.7%     2.29  1.6%      0.112
>>  Europe        732,206 10.7%    31.42 22.5%      2.103
>>  L America     528,418  8.5%     6.28  4.5%      0.529
>>  N America     348,360  5.1%    27.65 19.8%      3.882
>>  Oceania        35,387  0.5%    (part of APNIC)  
>>  Total:      6,829,360         139.85
>> 
>>  [Population in thousands, mid year 2009 estimates from the UN; address
>>  usage from www.nro.net/statistics (Sept 2011).

By the way, the NRO numbers used in this chart don't include the "central registry" blocks. Geoff Huston's report at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ apparently includes these legacy blocks in the regional tally (based on Whois location, I assume). See for example figure 4 "Address Pools by RIR by State" in Geoff's report. From that data, one might conclude there is even less equality in the distribution.

Further, per Geoff's data, many of the blocks held in the ARIN region are unadvertised. And I suspect that a material number of legacy blocks are inefficiently used. There are already market-based mechanisms for transferring these legacy blocks, including inter-regional transfers bypassing ARIN.  Draft policy 2011-1 allows ARIN to also facilitate these kinds of transfers for RSA-based holders.

Cheers,
-Benson




From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Thu Nov 10 13:53:37 2011
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:53:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu> (Bill
	Darte's message of "Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:25:29 -0600")
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <86y5vnreq6.fsf@seastrom.com>


"Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> writes:

> Earlier I asked persons objecting to the last call language to provide
> specifics about how the newly crafted language of 2011-1 varies from the
> objectives and intent of the flawed language of 2011-1 presented in
> Philadelphia. I did not get any explicit answers.  I ask for the same
> again. 
>
> The objectives for DP 2011-1 were pointed out in the Philly presentation
> and were a composite of feedback and suggestions that were offered by
> the community on PPML and at the Puerto Rico PPM.  I list them here with
> a link reference to the presentation from Philly.
>
> ...
>
> Please indicate what has changed that makes this some 'new' draft policy
> rather than a re-wording of the 'same' DP?

+1

I respect the right of anyone to oppose a policy for any reason (or no
reason at all) but recent accusations of failed process etc. are
wholly unsupportable.

The AC did nothing unusual with regard to 2011-1, to wit: take input
from the Community, at two public policy meetings, do word-smithing
and polishing for a policy proposal, and move it forward.  That's
something that we do _constantly_.  2011-1 has not morphed in broad
intent over time, varying only in minutiae to make it compatible with
the will of the Community.

Please take a moment to read various iterations of 2011-1 side by
side.  The version that was sent to last call was *anything but* a
"new" draft policy.

-r (also a shepherd on 2011-1)



From lsawyer at gci.com  Thu Nov 10 14:46:44 2011
From: lsawyer at gci.com (Leif Sawyer)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:46:44 -0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D372AECE@fnb1mbx01.gci.com>

Point of clarification here, the "unidentified speaker"   is myself.


Just for reference. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:10 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
> 
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte 
> <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
> >
> > What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the 
> wording changes,
> > but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
> > calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language 
> is changing.
> 
> 
> The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to stop
> distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process was
> broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call with
> "tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.
> 
> Vint summarized it best:
> 
> Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue, Mr. Chairman, is
> I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory Council could
> continue to work on it is if we all voted to ? in favor of this with
> some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little undefined.  That's
> what I'm concerned about. "
> 
> >From the transcripts:
> 
>     
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/
> ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12
> 
> [ from where we start to form "the question" ]
> 
> Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong.  Do
> we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.
> 
> The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor it
> being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language
> tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can put your
> hands down.
> 
> Those against the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last
> call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory Council putting
> this to last call.
> 
> Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification. Based on what Owen
> had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or not this
> got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going back
> with tweaks.  They're different somehow.
> 
> Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it would be in
> another cycle of work.
> 
> Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.
> 
> Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have ? no.  I don't want
> anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of clarity.
> 
> Now, is the vote ? has the vote been taken?  All right.
> 
> 2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the room voting and
> by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call and making such
> corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the proposition
> were 24; those against were 17.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 14:54:15 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:54:15 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

>> As called by the Chair, the poll was "making such corrections as may
>> be necessary".  I agree that the intent of the poll was characterized
>> earlier as advancing to last call with "tweaks" or "minor changes"; it
>> is left to each community member to consider whether making changes to
>> the text for clarification purposes (as opposed to policy substance)
>> was included in the guidance provided to the ARIN AC.
> 
> I reviewed the video of the session this afternoon to clarify. The
> question asked and polled was specifically "do we favor it being put
> to last call with the advisory council making language tweaks".
> Additionally, a participant stood up and clearly asked the meeting
> Chair to clarify the question on a wider scale, if we were approving a
> rewrite and that a rewrite was totally different than what was being
> asked. The meeting Chair opted to keep the focus on language tweaks
> and not restate the question. The recording is painfully clear with
> respect to intent. Tweaks, not rewrite.

Martin - 
 
  Yes, I also reviewed the video, and hence my remark about the
  scope of what was recommended being a judgement of each member
  of the community.  Your characterization above is incorrect,
  as the definition of what constitutes a tweak was left open
  intentionally, and furthermore because the motion language
  was language provided by Owen Delong and simply indicated
  correcting the draft policy and moving it to last call.

  Regarding "tweaks", you point out that participant stood up 
  and said the value of "tweaks" was a little undefined.  You
  failed mention that Chair found this to be an acceptable state 
  and replied  "Yes, I understand the value of tweaks is less 
  than perfectly defined."  Given a chance to specifically 
  restrict define the scope of "tweaks", this was not done.

  Furthermore, the Chair did not restate the question because he 
  had already had Owen repeat his phrasing of the question, to wit:

  "Does the community support the Advisory Council correcting this 
   and moving it to last call versus does the community feel that 
   it needs major changes and another trip to a meeting."

  The Chair then said: "Okay.  So we have heard the language from 
   Mr. DeLong.  Do we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks. 
   the proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor 
   it being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language 
   tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. "

  Those supporting the question were supporting the language that 
  Owen repeated, specifically "the Advisory Council correcting 
  it and moving it to last call" which was the language referenced 
  by the Chair.  It is quite possible that some community members 
  were confused in this process, but the question asked definitely
  included the AC making changes (of scope undefined) and putting 
  the result to last call.  

  You may disapprove of the AC correcting the issues in the draft 
  policy by means of a rewrite, but it is certainly within the AC's
  ability to do so, and furthermore not contrary to the direction
  of "correcting it and moving it to last call" given in the PPM.

  To the extent that there's some policy aspects of the rewrite 
  that go beyond addressing the issues raised in the PPM, it is
  important that they be called out to the community during this
  last call period.  So far, it is not apparent that the revised
  draft policy is materially different from version presented at 
  PPM (with appropriate corrections for the issues discussed.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 15:10:45 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:10:45 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OskvEAiDB6PN1KyJotms9=YUZ0fqi1rY7ELgaPem+ibw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:54 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>> As called by the Chair, the poll was "making such corrections as may
>>> be necessary". ?I agree that the intent of the poll was characterized
>>> earlier as advancing to last call with "tweaks" or "minor changes"; it
>>> is left to each community member to consider whether making changes to
>>> the text for clarification purposes (as opposed to policy substance)
>>> was included in the guidance provided to the ARIN AC.
>>
>> I reviewed the video of the session this afternoon to clarify. The
>> question asked and polled was specifically "do we favor it being put
>> to last call with the advisory council making language tweaks".
>> Additionally, a participant stood up and clearly asked the meeting
>> Chair to clarify the question on a wider scale, if we were approving a
>> rewrite and that a rewrite was totally different than what was being
>> asked. The meeting Chair opted to keep the focus on language tweaks
>> and not restate the question. The recording is painfully clear with
>> respect to intent. Tweaks, not rewrite.
>
> Martin -
>
> ?Yes, I also reviewed the video, and hence my remark about the
> ?scope of what was recommended being a judgement of each member
> ?of the community. ?Your characterization above is incorrect,
> ?as the definition of what constitutes a tweak was left open
> ?intentionally, and furthermore because the motion language
> ?was language provided by Owen Delong and simply indicated
> ?correcting the draft policy and moving it to last call.
>
> ?Regarding "tweaks", you point out that participant stood up
> ?and said the value of "tweaks" was a little undefined. ?You
> ?failed mention that Chair found this to be an acceptable state
> ?and replied ?"Yes, I understand the value of tweaks is less
> ?than perfectly defined." ?Given a chance to specifically
> ?restrict define the scope of "tweaks", this was not done.


[ clip ]

> ?To the extent that there's some policy aspects of the rewrite
> ?that go beyond addressing the issues raised in the PPM, it is
> ?important that they be called out to the community during this
> ?last call period. ?So far, it is not apparent that the revised
> ?draft policy is materially different from version presented at
> ?PPM (with appropriate corrections for the issues discussed.)
>

We can agree to disagree. The participants comment asked for
clarification and called them "much different" and the Chair agreed.
The intent of the room was from the collegiate definition of the word,
not the ARIN definitions, which are typically vague at best. :-)

That we're down to viewing video and arguing about tonal inflections
is problematic in itself. The meeting results are invalid and should
be treated as such. The widespread opposition to the policy
demonstrated on the list is more sustainable with respect to both the
process and the policy as well as the desires of the membership of
ARIN.  Hopefully, we can move on to the list conversation. You don't
really have to agree with me here.

Best,

-M<


Best,

-M<


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 10 15:10:47 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:10:47 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Version 1.1 (grammatical cleanup and clarification) of
	Proposal 158 (Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks IPv4 Policy)
In-Reply-To: <9F3A0E45-9B08-4256-8A3F-B03496E0629F@delong.com>
References: <9F3A0E45-9B08-4256-8A3F-B03496E0629F@delong.com>
Message-ID: <79C1FBE8-D313-49A4-9387-9D8DF3E5EA96@delong.com>

Below is an update to Proposal 158. The changes are very minor (corrected some
typos) and do not change the meaning or intent at all.

I included the full text of the resulting policy for clarity and to make it easy to
consider.

Lines which are quoted are lines which are unmodified from the original proposal.

> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
> 
>  1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Multiple Discreet Networks Policy
>  2. Proposal Originator
>        1. name: Owen DeLong
>        2. e-mail: owen at delong.com
>        3. telephone: 408-890-7992
>        4. organization: Hurricane Electric
 3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>  4. Date: 3 October, 2011
>  5. Proposal type: modify
>  6. Policy term: permanent
>  7. Policy statement:
> 
> Modify section 4.5 of the NRPM as follows:
> 
> Replace 4.5.2 with: The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
> 
Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy.
> Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
> 
> Move 4.5.2 a, b, and c into new 4.5.3.
> 
> Renumber existing 4.5.3 et. seq. to accommodate new 4.5.3 (4.5.3->4.5.4, etc.).
> 

The resulting section 4.5 would read:

4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks

Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:

4.5.1 The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities.
4.5.2 The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
4.5.3 Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
 a. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
 b. Geographic distance and diversity between networks, 
 c. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
4.5.4 The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
4.5.6 The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized.
4.5.7 The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account.

>  8. Rationale:
> 
> Recent discussions on the PPML have shown that while ARIN is correctly applying the policy as intended,
> there are those which interpret the existing wording differently.
> 
> This proposal seeks to clarify the meaning in line with the current and intended application of the policy.
> 
>  9. Timetable for implementation:
> 
> Immediate
> 
> END OF TEMPLATE 
> 



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 15:42:22 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:42:22 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5OskvEAiDB6PN1KyJotms9=YUZ0fqi1rY7ELgaPem+ibw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OskvEAiDB6PN1KyJotms9=YUZ0fqi1rY7ELgaPem+ibw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0D950E06-3D34-48D6-80F3-5A58C85415FD@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We can agree to disagree. The participants comment asked for
> clarification and called them "much different" and the Chair agreed.
> The intent of the room was from the collegiate definition of the word,
> not the ARIN definitions, which are typically vague at best. :-)
> 
> That we're down to viewing video and arguing about tonal inflections
> is problematic in itself.

Correct.  As I noted, it is up to each member of the community to 
judge for themselves the scope of changes that were requested.

However, it is quite clear that question called for the draft policy 
(after corrections) to be sent to last call.  Furthermore, the AC has
always had the ability to rewrite draft policies as it sees fit in 
order to produce the best possible policy (i.e. it does not require 
any direction from the PPM to do so), with the protection that if the 
Advisory Council sends a draft policy to last call that is different 
from the one presented at the Public Policy Meeting, then the Advisory 
Council will provide an explanation for all changes made to the text.

This is why it does not matter if the community meant "correct the 
policy only by making adjustments" or not, as the AC has ability to 
rewrite draft policy text (with the protection noted above) if they
feel it will improve the result.  You may not be aware of the policy 
development process, but it has indeed been followed correctly.  

In this phase, the community provides feedback regarding the changes 
made after the Public Policy Meeting. If you have any feedback on the 
changes or improvements to the policy language, you should send to 
such to PPML list.  To date, you have provided no feedback on the
draft policy as revised, so it is difficult to determine what aspects
(if any) of the revised policy language you object to.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

p.s.  Also, we have just had a consultation on the proposed update 
      to the Policy Development Process, and while it has closed, I 
      will take directly any suggestions for changes to that process 
      that folks feel are necessary for improvement.







From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 10 15:54:28 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:54:28 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVnL3jHDoxuHjXeSVk6Az2J5FXDNQ0AcL+KpYeN50EgUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.
>
> Earlier I asked persons objecting to the last call language to provide
> specifics about how the newly crafted language of 2011-1 varies from the
> objectives and intent of the flawed language of 2011-1 presented in
> Philadelphia. I did not get any explicit answers.

Bill,

I thought I shouted some explicit answers loudly enough but I'll be
pleased to repeat two of the most significant ones:

1. The community did not intend to alter the in-region transfer
policies with proposal 2011-1. That desire began and ended with drafts
2011-8 and 2011-10, in which the debate showed such contention that
the AC should have been well aware of the community's desire NOT to
make sweeping changes to section 8.3.

Altering the existing section 8.3 was entirely the AC's invention at
the suggestion not of the community at large but of ARIN staff. Top
down. This was inconsistent with the PPM draft which would,
presumably, have become its own policy section governing only
inter-region transfers.


2. The draft presented at the meeting required the parties to "meet
both RIR's policies." The current draft guts that requirement,
demanding each party meet only one part of one RIR's requirements. The
PPM draft was vague. You might have understood it to intend what the
revision offered. But some portion, possibly a majority of the
community understood it differently and based their consent on the
requirement that folks receiving addresses from ARIN meet at least as
stringent policy requirements regardless of which region they're in.


Perhaps you disagree with either or both of these points.
Nevertheless, you will find that they are as explicit answers to your
question as the radical change in draft language permits.


> We keep hearing about the differences in current (last call)language of
> DP 2011-1 from that presented at the Philadelphia PPM. ?And, how that
> change took place just hours after the PPM meeting and just hours before
> the AC meeting, and again IN the AC meeting. ?That is all very
> true....and true to the mission of the AC in supporting community policy
> development.

That last statement is false. Had you left out the words "supporting
community" it might have accurately reflected the board's directive
that the AC develop number policy. However, _community_ policy is
developed bottom-up. The sum of the AC's behavior post-PPM was
anything but and you've been excoriated for it by a number of folks
including both current and previous AC members.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net  Thu Nov 10 15:34:12 2011
From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:34:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
Message-ID: <4EBC3544.6020308@abenaki.wabanaki.net>

I'm opposed to inter-RIR transfers. I do not support 2011-1 ("ARIN 
INTER-RIR TRANSFERS"), independent of the process issues surrounding 
the drafting of 2011-1.

Eric


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 10 16:12:05 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:12:05 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVnL3jHDoxuHjXeSVk6Az2J5FXDNQ0AcL+KpYeN50EgUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGVnL3jHDoxuHjXeSVk6Az2J5FXDNQ0AcL+KpYeN50EgUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75B37DBC-EB99-495A-AA78-7F52D5EEA63A@delong.com>


On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:54 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
>> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
>> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.
>> 
>> Earlier I asked persons objecting to the last call language to provide
>> specifics about how the newly crafted language of 2011-1 varies from the
>> objectives and intent of the flawed language of 2011-1 presented in
>> Philadelphia. I did not get any explicit answers.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I thought I shouted some explicit answers loudly enough but I'll be
> pleased to repeat two of the most significant ones:
> 
> 1. The community did not intend to alter the in-region transfer
> policies with proposal 2011-1. That desire began and ended with drafts
> 2011-8 and 2011-10, in which the debate showed such contention that
> the AC should have been well aware of the community's desire NOT to
> make sweeping changes to section 8.3.
> 
> Altering the existing section 8.3 was entirely the AC's invention at
> the suggestion not of the community at large but of ARIN staff. Top
> down. This was inconsistent with the PPM draft which would,
> presumably, have become its own policy section governing only
> inter-region transfers.
> 
Bill,

In what way does the proposed language change the effect of 8.3 on
in-region transfers? I simply don't see it and I see no reason to expect
that the NPRM-ification of the prior language would somehow not
have modified 8.3 rather than becoming a separate policy section.
In fact, even if it had become its own policy section, it's hard to see
how that would have happened without also modifying 8.3 or
developing even greater inconsistencies.

> 
> 2. The draft presented at the meeting required the parties to "meet
> both RIR's policies." The current draft guts that requirement,
> demanding each party meet only one part of one RIR's requirements. The
> PPM draft was vague. You might have understood it to intend what the
> revision offered. But some portion, possibly a majority of the
> community understood it differently and based their consent on the
> requirement that folks receiving addresses from ARIN meet at least as
> stringent policy requirements regardless of which region they're in.
> 

This topic was discussed in detail at the meeting and I find it hard to
believe that anyone in the room interpreted it that way after it was
presented. There were no comments to this effect made during the
discussion of the policy and the intent to apply receiving RIR policy
to the recipient and providing RIR policy to the provider were, IMHO,
quite clear in the discussion. I believe this was also discussed on the
mailing list prior to the meeting, but, I don't have the reference handy
and don't have time to dig for it at the moment.
> 
> Perhaps you disagree with either or both of these points.
> Nevertheless, you will find that they are as explicit answers to your
> question as the radical change in draft language permits.
> 

I don't believe that it is valid to characterize either of these as radical
change, but, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Owen




From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 10 16:27:09 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:27:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> p.s. ?Also, we have just had a consultation on the proposed update
> ? ? ?to the Policy Development Process, and while it has closed, I
> ? ? ?will take directly any suggestions for changes to that process
> ? ? ?that folks feel are necessary for improvement.

John,

Ditch it and start over using the IRPEP as the base model. The PDP was
a bad idea from the start.

The whole point of separating number policy development from the board
was to create adequate checks and balances: an ISP member elected
board (ISPs having such a huge financial stake in the results) gets
the final say over policy adoption, but only after policy bubbles up
from the wider community (everybody using addresses who cares to
speak) and gains that community's consensus.

Charging a second member-elected body not with shepherding policy
ideas through the process but instead actively developing it created a
CONFLICT OF INTEREST which has WRECKED THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. This
past couple weeks' sorry mess is just the latest example.

I don't care how good you are. How honorable. How pure. Conflicts of
interest erode and eventually destroy your good judgment. I've watched
up close and personal as it happened to individuals far nobler than
any current member of the AC. The only working solution is to break
one of the links in the loop which forms the conflict of interest.

AC members can't "not be" ISP industry experts. And we wouldn't want
them to if they could. The alternative is what we found in the IRPEP:
they don't write ARIN policy as a group. Instead, they help
individuals (including themselves) write and bring forward those
individual's policy proposals.

The IRPEP had its problems, but they were at the edge of the process.
The PDP is rotten at the core.

So dust off the IRPEP and find the minimalist changes which mitigate
its few problems. And let the PDP become a bad memory.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 16:39:35 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:39:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB488450-41CF-4E50-862D-336EC8ACFBCE@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> ...
> Charging a second member-elected body not with shepherding policy
> ideas through the process but instead actively developing it created a
> CONFLICT OF INTEREST which has WRECKED THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. This
> past couple weeks' sorry mess is just the latest example.

Bill - 

  We've had an ARIN AC since the very beginning which has
  been distinct from the Board but charged with advising 
  the ARIN Board on number resource policy matters.  Are
  you asserting that having the ARIN AC both lead the 
  development and make the recommendations on policies
  presents a greater conflict of interest than just their
  duty to recommend policies?  If you are doing so, and 
  pointing to 2011-1 as an example, then please let me 
  know asap (privately if desired) if you feel that any 
  ARIN AC members are acting out of interests other than 
  to the ARIN community at large.  I have seen absolutely
  no evidence of such, and actually see many AC members
  which are going out of their way to solicit any and all
  input from the community.

> AC members can't "not be" ISP industry experts. And we wouldn't want
> them to if they could. The alternative is what we found in the IRPEP:
> they don't write ARIN policy as a group. Instead, they help
> individuals (including themselves) write and bring forward those
> individual's policy proposals.

  You realize that the change occurred intentionally, with the
  result being better and clearer policy.  I have no objection
  to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely 
  want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.  

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 10 16:44:07 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:44:07 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?
In-Reply-To: <4EBB18D5.40508@ecs.vuw.ac.nz>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CAP-guGUMieSFSr7pm12FWahrTeBxf5kxfBH5nBQYh+FwacxDPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBB18D5.40508@ecs.vuw.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWPOkd75OBTvV_H2HntDC5suDoOCgdZKkCnEP9pvNx3qA@mail.gmail.com>

 On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at ecs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:31 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> ARIN doesn't use National Internet Registries (NIRs). LIRs (ISPs) and
>> large or multihomed end-users register addresses directly with ARIN.
>> APNIC prefers to create NIRs, country-level registries, and then have
>> LIRs and end-users register addresses there instead.
>
> I'd be wary of characterising the structure in the APNIC region as
> "APNIC prefers to create NIRs...". I don't believe that this is correct.

Hi Andy,

I accept your version. I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae
of the difference between ARIN's and APNIC's respective structures and
frankly, it's beside the point.

However well intentioned your efforts and ours, the fact is that some
of your registrants and some of our registrants are double-dealing
scum. The overwhelming majority of our respective registrants are
wonderful people but a few are not. Those few will seek any advantage
they find in unprotected policy, yours or ours, and they will insist
we follow the letter of our policies as misappropriated resources
enrich them.

Unfortunately, ARIN draft 2011-1 lacks meaningful resilience against
bad actors from within either of our communities. Even the staff
assessment says so: 'This policy may provide incentive for
organizations to game the system. This behavior [...] may be difficult
for staff to distinguish from bona fide changes in circumstances." If
we move forward before fixing it, well, what do you think happens in
the feedback loop between policy development and its results as the
resources you're trying to get into the hands of folks who need them
are diverted by bad actors? Do we calmly discuss small tweaks with our
trustworthy partners at APNIC?

The political pendulum always swings too far. Bold policy enacted on
the tip of the swing isn't scaled back when the pendulum retreats.
It's crushed. Annihilated so thoroughly that generations pass before
anyone is willing to voice support for anything vaguely like it. Let's
play it smart: scale this back to something more conservative,
something that a far larger plurality than 24 versus 17 people can
live with. Something that won't leave APNIC a victim of the blame game
when the inevitable holes in the policy are found.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Nov 10 16:48:35 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:48:35 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C29@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

So, OK....again you speak to the 'broken process'...and you say there is a King James re-write...
Show me where the 'major' edits are....I call them tweaks and re-wording.
bd


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 11:10 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
 
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> All,
>

[ clip ]

>
> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.


The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to stop
distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process was
broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call with
"tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.

Vint summarized it best:

Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue, Mr. Chairman, is
I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory Council could
continue to work on it is if we all voted to - in favor of this with
some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little undefined.  That's
what I'm concerned about. "

>From the transcripts:

    https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12

[ from where we start to form "the question" ]

Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong.  Do
we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.

The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor it
being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language
tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can put your
hands down.

Those against the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last
call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory Council putting
this to last call.

Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification. Based on what Owen
had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or not this
got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going back
with tweaks.  They're different somehow.

Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it would be in
another cycle of work.

Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.

Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have - no.  I don't want
anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of clarity.

Now, is the vote - has the vote been taken?  All right.

2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the room voting and
by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call and making such
corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the proposition
were 24; those against were 17.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/bba44576/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 17:20:42 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:20:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <0D950E06-3D34-48D6-80F3-5A58C85415FD@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OskvEAiDB6PN1KyJotms9=YUZ0fqi1rY7ELgaPem+ibw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D950E06-3D34-48D6-80F3-5A58C85415FD@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5N2E4=+Mst6x85dtYzd8f975zJvV6VDZgtrPbP4+1pKcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> We can agree to disagree. The participants comment asked for
>> clarification and called them "much different" and the Chair agreed.
>> The intent of the room was from the collegiate definition of the word,
>> not the ARIN definitions, which are typically vague at best. :-)
>>
>> That we're down to viewing video and arguing about tonal inflections
>> is problematic in itself.
>
>
> However, it is quite clear that question called for the draft policy
> (after corrections) to be sent to last call. ?Furthermore, the AC has

Actually, it is not, but you're unwilling to view it any other way so
continued debate is pointless. We can move on.

[ clip ]

> This is why it does not matter if the community meant "correct the
> policy only by making adjustments" or not, as the AC has ability to
> rewrite draft policy text (with the protection noted above) if they
> feel it will improve the result. ?You may not be aware of the policy
> development process, but it has indeed been followed correctly.

Section 3 of the PDP counters this claim as you appear to intend it to
be absolute and sets the intent clearly and doesn't seem to imply at
all that the AC is an independent body above and superior to the
community. Getting elected to the AC doesn't require much more than a
few well placed connections and suggesting that the AC in an absolute
manner, like a cabal or a cartel, would be very much contrary to the
communities wishes. As I have said before,

I'll continue to agree to disagree. And for as long as you would like
me too. :-)


>
> In this phase, the community provides feedback regarding the changes
> made after the Public Policy Meeting. If you have any feedback on the
> changes or improvements to the policy language, you should send to
> such to PPML list. ?To date, you have provided no feedback on the
> draft policy as revised, so it is difficult to determine what aspects
> (if any) of the revised policy language you object to.


My contribution with respect to the failed process is as valid as
yours and contributory overall. I also have clearly stated my position
at the policy meeting as neutral and then later in the thread as
opposed. I believe we are creating that vacuum that business is
worried about and fueling the failure of the Internet or at least the
failure of the few who will not be able to gain access on a level
playing field with the rest of us.

I also saw your suggestion with respect to the additional commentary
on the ARIN PDP. My suggestion for the PDP is in-line with William
Herrin's suggestion.

Best,

-M<


From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 17:42:56 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:42:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <32C3FF1E-151F-4F0E-8937-D95129361411@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OskvEAiDB6PN1KyJotms9=YUZ0fqi1rY7ELgaPem+ibw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D950E06-3D34-48D6-80F3-5A58C85415FD@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5N2E4=+Mst6x85dtYzd8f975zJvV6VDZgtrPbP4+1pKcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<32C3FF1E-151F-4F0E-8937-D95129361411@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OCrDudG55hF4rysewG5-NF5rFPbOMeS9ABrSom309igA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:26 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> I believe we are creating that vacuum that business is
>> worried about and fueling the failure of the Internet or at least the
>> failure of the few who will not be able to gain access on a level
>> playing field with the rest of us.
>
> Could you elaborate on how the revised ARIN-2011-1 draft policy
> contributes to this outcome?
>

I'd love to. Many of the same comments have been made elsewhere
already though. I'd rather not cause some to continue to endlessly
repeat themselves in hopeless opposition. :-)

Enjoy your evening, it's quitting time!

Best,

-M<


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 17:49:22 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:49:22 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5OCrDudG55hF4rysewG5-NF5rFPbOMeS9ABrSom309igA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5Pi0rjKv_cc1Z919y7SZgG7KtzaUMr3pJp2fd5N7NHTNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<97AA755F-CE06-425B-BCCA-4C479B12D69F@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OtG_gj3NMLM-9mx57WzW_ootzmxkK3bdd74MnWHBZX9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1182B96B-05CE-40A3-8ED7-29C20BF43334@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OskvEAiDB6PN1KyJotms9=YUZ0fqi1rY7ELgaPem+ibw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D950E06-3D34-48D6-80F3-5A58C85415FD@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5N2E4=+Mst6x85dtYzd8f975zJvV6VDZgtrPbP4+1pKcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<32C3FF1E-151F-4F0E-8937-D95129361411@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5OCrDudG55hF4rysewG5-NF5rFPbOMeS9ABrSom309igA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C4F41DBF-60F8-47CF-AD8B-24CC61E71048@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:26 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe we are creating that vacuum that business is
>>> worried about and fueling the failure of the Internet or at least the
>>> failure of the few who will not be able to gain access on a level
>>> playing field with the rest of us.
>> 
>> Could you elaborate on how the revised ARIN-2011-1 draft policy
>> contributes to this outcome?
>> 
> 
> I'd love to. Many of the same comments have been made elsewhere
> already though. I'd rather not cause some to continue to endlessly
> repeat themselves in hopeless opposition. :-)

It would be extremely useful at some point to get a short summary of 
these issues with 2011-1 as you seen them, as well as any suggestions 
for changes to the draft policy that would address these concerns. The 
extended last call period remains open till 16 November 2011.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 18:07:45 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:07:45 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C29@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C29@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5McutbwQgefmj=R7e=-TsbVD-bKYE_CS4h9de_UKVttFg@mail.gmail.com>

Bill,

Time to move on.

Best,

Marty
On Nov 10, 2011 4:49 PM, "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:

> **
>
> So, OK....again you speak to the 'broken process'...and you say there is a
> King James re-write...
> Show me where the 'major' edits are....I call them tweaks and re-wording.
> bd
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com <hannigan at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 11:10 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> > All,
> >
>
> [ clip ]
>
> >
> > What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
> > but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
> > calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.
>
>
> The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to stop
> distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process was
> broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call with
> "tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.
>
> Vint summarized it best:
>
> Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue, Mr. Chairman, is
> I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory Council could
> continue to work on it is if we all voted to - in favor of this with
> some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little undefined.  That's
> what I'm concerned about. "
>
> From the transcripts:
>
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12
>
> [ from where we start to form "the question" ]
>
> Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong.  Do
> we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.
>
> The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor it
> being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language
> tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can put your
> hands down.
>
> Those against the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last
> call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory Council putting
> this to last call.
>
> Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification. Based on what Owen
> had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or not this
> got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going back
> with tweaks.  They're different somehow.
>
> Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it would be in
> another cycle of work.
>
> Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.
>
> Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have - no.  I don't want
> anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of clarity.
>
> Now, is the vote - has the vote been taken?  All right.
>
> 2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the room voting and
> by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call and making such
> corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the proposition
> were 24; those against were 17.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/6106cf2b/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 10 18:51:08 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:51:08 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <DB488450-41CF-4E50-862D-336EC8ACFBCE@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB488450-41CF-4E50-862D-336EC8ACFBCE@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU_C5dwKbVNQsbjLYvySxhsTZYcKFCyr0Azg2wWjBdFfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:39 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Charging a second member-elected body not with shepherding policy
>> ideas through the process but instead actively developing it created a
>> CONFLICT OF INTEREST which has WRECKED THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. This
>> past couple weeks' sorry mess is just the latest example.
>
> ?Are
> ?you asserting that having the ARIN AC both lead the
> ?development and make the recommendations on policies
> ?presents a greater conflict of interest than just their
> ?duty to recommend policies?

John,

I am.

> ?If you are doing so, and
> ?pointing to 2011-1 as an example, then please let me
> ?know asap (privately if desired) if you feel that any
> ?ARIN AC members are acting out of interests other than
> ?to the ARIN community at large.

If I could offer an example of OVERT corruption I'd call for the
person's head instead of merely criticizing the process. As near as I
can figure the folks on the AC are fundamentally good people.

Conflicts of interest don't magically make good people perfidious. But
they do distort decision making processes. They give you a sense of
entitlement where there is none, as in a couple of Bill Darte's recent
posts. They cause you to reject and dismiss critical feedback even as
you beg folks to offer it.

It's like with my boss back when I worked for the Democratic National
Committee. Unlike me, he wasn't a direct employee. He was tasked to us
under contract with a company where he was a founder. And our
department gave that company a lot of work.

He realized there was a conflict of interest. And he was good man. Not
one penny of work went to that company at his direction. And each
direct DNC employee above him who authorized work by that company did
so with full knowledge of his position. He religiously isolated
himself from decisions that could be corrupt. Yet at the end of the
year our department had not decided to tread a different path than his
company's on any matter of importance. Not. Even. Once.

That's the insidious nature of a conflict of interest.



>> AC members can't "not be" ISP industry experts. And we wouldn't want
>> them to if they could. The alternative is what we found in the IRPEP:
>> they don't write ARIN policy as a group. Instead, they help
>> individuals (including themselves) write and bring forward those
>> individual's policy proposals.
>
> ?You realize that the change occurred intentionally, with the
> ?result being better and clearer policy.

Ironically, the PDP exhibited its achievement in the PPM presentation
of draft 2011-1.

I was around for the tail end of the IRPEP. I remember the final
straws of confused and conflicting policy proposals where it was
difficult to determine what one was consenting to or opposing. Where
good ideas fell into limbo as the authors lost interest or refused to
embrace a wider audience. 2011-1 being one of the notable exceptions,
I'll grant that the average craftsmanship on the language has improved
under the PDP.

But you know what? If the problem with the IRPEP was poor language,
hire us a language tutor or two. Someone to walk authors through
crafting the policy language to say what the authors intend it to say.
That'll give us better, clearer policy without sacrificing the bottom
of the bottom up process.


> ?I have no objection
> ?to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely
> ?want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.

The problem we're solving is the PDP's alienation of the people at the
bottom of the bottom-up process, the bottom which serves as the
foundation of ARIN's legitimacy.

Despite its faults, the IRPEP offered amazing, brilliant public access
to the process. A beacon in a night populated by the likes of ICANN
and the FCC. The PDP falls far short of it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 19:14:37 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:14:37 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU_C5dwKbVNQsbjLYvySxhsTZYcKFCyr0Azg2wWjBdFfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB488450-41CF-4E50-862D-336EC8ACFBCE@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU_C5dwKbVNQsbjLYvySxhsTZYcKFCyr0Azg2wWjBdFfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62365758-C91D-4E75-976B-6D8DFAD489E7@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:51 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> If I could offer an example of OVERT corruption I'd call for the
> person's head instead of merely criticizing the process. As near as I
> can figure the folks on the AC are fundamentally good people.

That's reassuring.

> Conflicts of interest don't magically make good people perfidious. But
> they do distort decision making processes. They give you a sense of
> entitlement where there is none, as in a couple of Bill Darte's recent
> posts. They cause you to reject and dismiss critical feedback even as
> you beg folks to offer it.

"Sense of entitlement" is much clearer to me in this context than
using the phrase "conflict of interest" (but point taken in either
case.) 

I know that you'd prefer to discard the PDP (both present and the
proposed revision) but regarding handling of feedback, the revised 
proposed PDP (under the "Supported by the Community" principle) does
have more direction: "Furthermore, any specific concerns expressed 
by a significant portion of the community must have been explicitly 
considered by the ARIN AC in their assessment of the policy change."

> I was around for the tail end of the IRPEP. I remember the final
> straws of confused and conflicting policy proposals where it was
> difficult to determine what one was consenting to or opposing. Where
> good ideas fell into limbo as the authors lost interest or refused to
> embrace a wider audience. 2011-1 being one of the notable exceptions,
> I'll grant that the average craftsmanship on the language has improved
> under the PDP.
> 
> But you know what? If the problem with the IRPEP was poor language,
> hire us a language tutor or two. Someone to walk authors through
> crafting the policy language to say what the authors intend it to say.
> That'll give us better, clearer policy without sacrificing the bottom
> of the bottom up process.

The most significant change was changing ownership of the draft 
policies clearly to be under control of the ARIN AC, as opposed
to the submitter.  I don't think that it necessarily has to be
an "either one or the other" situation and agree that something
was lost for what was gained.  More thought is needed here on how
to obtain the best of both.

>>  I have no objection
>>  to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely
>>  want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.
> 
> The problem we're solving is the PDP's alienation of the people at the
> bottom of the bottom-up process, the bottom which serves as the
> foundation of ARIN's legitimacy.
> 
> Despite its faults, the IRPEP offered amazing, brilliant public access
> to the process. A beacon in a night populated by the likes of ICANN
> and the FCC. The PDP falls far short of it.

I'd like to hear from other policy proposal submitters in this area,
(as I'm not certain all have had experiences similar to your own) but
the feedback is helpful for the current revision process as well.

Thanks!
/John 

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
  



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 10 20:56:23 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:56:23 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <62365758-C91D-4E75-976B-6D8DFAD489E7@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB488450-41CF-4E50-862D-336EC8ACFBCE@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU_C5dwKbVNQsbjLYvySxhsTZYcKFCyr0Azg2wWjBdFfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<62365758-C91D-4E75-976B-6D8DFAD489E7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX8wZv90N=79AT8-YP0fB_VGo7ohBiFEOtvu9GFDCTv8w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> ?I have no objection
>>> ?to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely
>>> ?want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.
>>
>> The problem we're solving is the PDP's alienation of the people at the
>> bottom of the bottom-up process, the bottom which serves as the
>> foundation of ARIN's legitimacy.
>>
>> Despite its faults, the IRPEP offered amazing, brilliant public access
>> to the process. A beacon in a night populated by the likes of ICANN
>> and the FCC. The PDP falls far short of it.
>
> I'd like to hear from other policy proposal submitters in this area,
> (as I'm not certain all have had experiences similar to your own) but
> the feedback is helpful for the current revision process as well.

Hi John,

As would I. In fairness I'm almost certainly suffering a mild case of
rose colored glasses.

The final IRPEP before the we switched to the PDP is here:
https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/iprep_archive_20060328.html

The AC's behavior as individuals and as a group differed in some
interesting ways due to the differences in the process. I'd like to
talk my way through the process I remember:


A. During the AC's initial review of a proposed policy, the AC
operating under the IRPEP almost always fell into the role described
in the IRPEP's point 2: the shepherd encouraged the author to make
revisions he felt would enhance the proposal. After some back and
forth the AC ended up at point 1: adopt as a formal policy proposal.

B. When the AC exercised review point 3: abandon a proposal
immediately, it was usually because the proposal didn't express
actionable policy or it expressed a proposal so obviously the same as
something the the community had considered and rejected that the toss
was a no-brainer.

C. I don't remember if anyone ever exercised the right to petition. If
they did, they needed only 4 statements of support to adopt the text
as a formal policy proposal. IIRC, the AC essentially didn't try to
stop anything for which there was a chance of four people saying, "I
want." This set a VERY low barrier to entry for anyone in the
community with a number policy idea and allowed some obvious
non-starters to burn time at the meeting.

D. As you pointed out, the author retained control of the text. I
recall the AC members offering any number of insightful suggestions
along with the occasional flop, but the original author chose whether
and how to integrate them. I personally remember Bill Darte's very
valuable help with my own first attempt at drafting a policy.

E. Presentation at the meetings was uneven. Some authors made
energetic presentations with lively Q&A. In other cases the text was
read in a monotone on behalf of an author who wasn't there. In some
cases the text stayed in flux up to and during the presentation. It
became difficult count the consensus because folks had spoken to so
many different versions.

F. At the meeting, consensus was polled and counted.

G. After the meeting, the AC made its official analysis and either
elected to abandon the proposal or move it to last call. I don't
recall the text seeing revision of any significance at this point,
though maybe someone can point out an example where it was. I don't
remember the AC ever failing to move a popular proposal to last call.
I recall a few contentious proposals that had at least as much
opposition as support making it to last call.

H. The last call was relatively brief and was basically a time to get
your final word in on the last revision of the text. It was really
up-or-down, not a time for suggesting change.

I. If the text survived last call without a material change in
consensus from the meeting and discussion then the AC generally
recommended it to the board for adoption.

J. A fair number of proposals didn't arrive at the board in the form
of actionable policy language ready to be dropped in to the NRPM, so
the board often did a bit of work tweaking the text.


Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 10 20:54:50 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:54:50 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <62365758-C91D-4E75-976B-6D8DFAD489E7@arin.net>
References: <CAP-guGW76L5DDbEqBMrTsg901AYzEiYdDLYXZz+foLREwTHJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB488450-41CF-4E50-862D-336EC8ACFBCE@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGU_C5dwKbVNQsbjLYvySxhsTZYcKFCyr0Azg2wWjBdFfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<62365758-C91D-4E75-976B-6D8DFAD489E7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <BB28045C-58A6-4C9E-AD61-A526F9375D7A@delong.com>

> 
> I'd like to hear from other policy proposal submitters in this area,
> (as I'm not certain all have had experiences similar to your own) but
> the feedback is helpful for the current revision process as well.
> 

John,

I don't think there is any question that I have submitted a significant
quantity (and some significant quality) of policy proposals over the
years. I cannot offer a non-AC author's perspective on the PDP, as
I joined the AC prior to the end of the IRPEP (though very near
the transition point).

However, having been an author on both sides of the fence (on the
AC and off), I will say the following:

1. I don't believe that author's who are not AC members are in any
	way discounted in the process. I think that the AC carefully
	considers each policy proposal on its merits and not based
	on who it comes from.

	I realize that this perception may not be shared by all and may
	especially be held in disbelief by authors that have shown a
	talent for writing remarkably bad proposals.

	However, I will note that even as a member of the AC, I have
	submitted several proposals which have been abandoned
	at all stages of the process, including not even being accepted
	onto the AC's docket. In many cases, I myself have voted
	against them based on changing circumstances and/or
	community feedback.

2. Like most political and organizational processes, the PDP
	is hard on those who seek to make changes. I have left
	the podium feeling very dejected, deflated, and on the
	verge of abandoning the entire process more than once
	in my early days of participation. Fortunately, I have
	friends in the community and they helped me to learn
	that I should not take it personally and that sometimes my
	best idea is the community's idea of a bad idea and vice
	versa. As a result I picked myself up and continued
	forward. I like to think good things have happened as a result.

	I also try to remember those feelings when dealing with
	authors and others whose policies we don't advance.
	When possible, I try to reach out and convey those same
	reassurances. Some authors have been more receptive
	than others.

3. Modulo the feedback I've already provided, I think the current
	PDP and the revisions proposed are generally a good
	step forward and in the correct direction. However, I do think
	that work should be done to make the process friendlier
	for non-AC policy authors. I'm not sure exactly how to achieve
	that, but, I think it is good feedback and worthy of consideration.

Owen



From mysidia at gmail.com  Thu Nov 10 21:17:30 2011
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:17:30 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:01 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> For clarity, there were two calls for show of support at the Philly
> meeting related to ARIN-2011-1. ?Both had majority support; I am
> including them here so that the community has ready access to
> the referenced?information:  [snip]
> The second was "Those in favor of?moving 2011-1 to last call and
> making?such corrections as may be necessary" with 124 people
> present & remote;?the results were 24 in favor and 17 against.
[snip]

Well,  if there were 124 people present and only  24 weighted in...
that's what 20% stepping in to say they're
in favor of doing that, and  14%   of those present  stepping in as opposed ?

That's not a majority either way, then.   A majority would be 62
stepping in to say they're in favor, right?
And less than one third of those present made a show of support or
oppose either way?
It sounds like the great majority didn't want to weigh in,  either direction.

Which sounds like both massive lack of support of 2011-1 actually
moving to last call,
and massive lack of particular opposition as well.

So you had a moderate show of support from the community of the
concept of providing for interregional transfers with 42% showing in
favor  and <1% showing as opposed,    but quite limited show of full
support for the text proposed   or of moving to last call.

--
-JH


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 21:35:17 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:35:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> Well,  if there were 124 people present and only  24 weighted in...
> that's what 20% stepping in to say they're
> in favor of doing that, and  14%   of those present  stepping in as opposed ?
> 
> That's not a majority either way, then.   A majority would be 62
> stepping in to say they're in favor, right?
> And less than one third of those present made a show of support or
> oppose either way?
> It sounds like the great majority didn't want to weigh in,  either direction.

Jimmy - 

  Since the room often has a wide range of folks (many of whom do not 
  show support either way, such as ARIN staff or visiting staff of the 
  other RIRs, AC or Board members under most conditions, invited guests), 
  the total count in the room is always somewhat greater than the count
  of active participants. 

> Which sounds like both massive lack of support of 2011-1 actually
> moving to last call,
> and massive lack of particular opposition as well.
> 
> So you had a moderate show of support from the community of the
> concept of providing for interregional transfers with 42% showing in
> favor  and <1% showing as opposed,    but quite limited show of full
> support for the text proposed   or of moving to last call.

  Actually, I agree with your comparison in any case: the concept of 
  providing for interregional transfers in some form had moderate support 
  (I'd actually consider it "strong" in light of the count issues above) 
  whereas advancing the presented policy language (with corrections) to 
  last call had limited support and clear opposition in the community.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 10 21:35:22 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:35:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVcsnYbwka=NPHWBaZhBy9ffUiewty7ecu4yYd6pisoGw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, ?if there were 124 people present and only ?24 weighted in...
> that's what 20% stepping in to say they're
> in favor of doing that, and ?14% ? of those present ?stepping in as opposed ?
>
> That's not a majority either way, then. ? A majority would be 62
> stepping in to say they're in favor, right?
> And less than one third of those present made a show of support or
> oppose either way?
> It sounds like the great majority didn't want to weigh in, ?either direction.

Hi Jimmy,

That's not really fair. If you want to couch it in voting terms, only
the 54 people who voiced an opinion should be counted as voters. Of
the others... some are from out region and may consider it
inappropriate to stand for or against ARIN region policy. Some are
staff prohibited from voting. Some are there to report back to their
organizations and don't have an opinion to offer.

53:1 in favor of the general idea but only 24:17 in favor of
"tweaking" the text and sending it to last call. So, 44% of
respondents were in favor of a "tweaked" version moving to last call
while 32% were in favor of either abandonment or returning it to the
AC's docket.

Still, your main conclusion survives:

> Which sounds like both massive lack of support of 2011-1 actually
> moving to last call,


Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Nov 10 21:39:30 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:39:30 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5McutbwQgefmj=R7e=-TsbVD-bKYE_CS4h9de_UKVttFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com><CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com><EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu><CAMDXq5MEc4S0oN-CPQ3N1eQLcz7Q2Ct-MHQVGV19_bdjCQXZ7g@mail.gmail.com><EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C29@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAMDXq5McutbwQgefmj=R7e=-TsbVD-bKYE_CS4h9de_UKVttFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD297@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

Yes, indeed.  This dialog needs to move to substantive discussion of the
merits of the DP not the PDP.
 
Bill Darte
 
NOTE: I am retiring from the University and  want to continue to get
your messages.
PLEASE USE: My new  email address for ALL future correspondence
beginning NOW....Thanks!
 
billdarte at gmail.com
 


________________________________

	From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:08 PM
	To: Bill Darte
	Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom
	Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning
changed?
	
	

	

	Bill, 

	Time to move on. 

	Best, 

	Marty

	On Nov 10, 2011 4:49 PM, "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu>
wrote:
	

		

		So, OK....again you speak to the 'broken process'...and
you say there is a King James re-write...
		Show me where the 'major' edits are....I call them
tweaks and re-wording.
		bd
		
		
		-----Original Message-----
		From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com]
		Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 11:10 AM
		To: Bill Darte
		Cc: Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net
		Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning
changed?
		
		On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte
<BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
		> All,
		>
		
		[ clip ]
		
		>
		> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of
the wording changes,
		> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what
the community
		> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose
language is changing.
		
		
		The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good
time to stop
		distracting the discussion and simply agree that the
process was
		broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last
call with
		"tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.
		
		Vint summarized it best:
		
		Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue,
Mr. Chairman, is
		I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory
Council could
		continue to work on it is if we all voted to - in favor
of this with
		some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little
undefined.  That's
		what I'm concerned about. "
		
		From the transcripts:
		
	
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_trans
cript.html#anchor_12
		
		[ from where we start to form "the question" ]
		
		Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from
Mr. DeLong.  Do
		we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.
		
		The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do
we favor it
		being put to last call with the Advisory Council making
language
		tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can
put your
		hands down.
		
		Those against the Advisory Council putting the
proposition to last
		call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory
Council putting
		this to last call.
		
		Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification.
Based on what Owen
		had said, I thought we were going to be voting on
whether or not this
		got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against
it going back
		with tweaks.  They're different somehow.
		
		Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it
would be in
		another cycle of work.
		
		Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.
		
		Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have - no.  I
don't want
		anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of
clarity.
		
		Now, is the vote - has the vote been taken?  All right.
		
		2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the
room voting and
		by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call
and making such
		corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the
proposition
		were 24; those against were 17.
		
		

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/77774f45/attachment.htm>

From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Nov 10 21:46:19 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:46:19 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net>
	<4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net><2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt><6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net><CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
	<503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD298@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>


John,

You say there is 'clear opposition' and only 'limited support'.
I would say there is 'very vocal opposition' from a few folks and
limited support and opposition from the remainder.

bd

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:35 PM
> To: Jimmy Hess
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR 
> Transfers - Revised Assessment
> 
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> 
> > Well,  if there were 124 people present and only  24 weighted in...
> > that's what 20% stepping in to say they're
> > in favor of doing that, and  14%   of those present  
> stepping in as opposed ?
> > 
> > That's not a majority either way, then.   A majority would be 62
> > stepping in to say they're in favor, right?
> > And less than one third of those present made a show of support or 
> > oppose either way?
> > It sounds like the great majority didn't want to weigh in,  
> either direction.
> 
> Jimmy - 
> 
>   Since the room often has a wide range of folks (many of whom do not
>   show support either way, such as ARIN staff or visiting staff of the
>   other RIRs, AC or Board members under most conditions, 
> invited guests),
>   the total count in the room is always somewhat greater than 
> the count
>   of active participants. 
> 
> > Which sounds like both massive lack of support of 2011-1 actually 
> > moving to last call, and massive lack of particular opposition as 
> > well.
> > 
> > So you had a moderate show of support from the community of the 
> > concept of providing for interregional transfers with 42% showing in
> > favor  and <1% showing as opposed,    but quite limited show of full
> > support for the text proposed   or of moving to last call.
> 
>   Actually, I agree with your comparison in any case: the concept of
>   providing for interregional transfers in some form had 
> moderate support
>   (I'd actually consider it "strong" in light of the count 
> issues above)
>   whereas advancing the presented policy language (with 
> corrections) to
>   last call had limited support and clear opposition in the community.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 10 22:18:01 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:18:01 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD298@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
	<503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD298@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <98955EF1-DFE3-4723-8900-67990BAF9166@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Bill Darte wrote:

> You say there is 'clear opposition' and only 'limited support'.
> I would say there is 'very vocal opposition' from a few folks and
> limited support and opposition from the remainder.

Bill - 

I do believe this an area where we lack an uniform objective scale 
by which to choose superlatives (which is why we usually just let 
the numbers speak for themselves... :-)

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN 



From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Nov 10 22:18:28 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:18:28 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
	<503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD298@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<98955EF1-DFE3-4723-8900-67990BAF9166@arin.net>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C2C@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

Agreed. The numbers tell an objective story.  But, not necessarily a clear or accurate one.  That's why interpretation and discussion are important to the process.

bd


-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 9:18 PM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised Assessment
 
On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Bill Darte wrote:

> You say there is 'clear opposition' and only 'limited support'.
> I would say there is 'very vocal opposition' from a few folks and
> limited support and opposition from the remainder.

Bill - 

I do believe this an area where we lack an uniform objective scale 
by which to choose superlatives (which is why we usually just let 
the numbers speak for themselves... :-)

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/0efb793a/attachment.htm>

From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Nov 11 00:53:02 2011
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:53:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201111110553.pAB5r29h007294@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Nov 11 00:53:02 EST 2011
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 22.02% |   24 | 15.40% |   167677 | jcurran at arin.net
 18.35% |   20 | 13.15% |   143179 | bill at herrin.us
 13.76% |   15 | 11.40% |   124124 | hannigan at gmail.com
  8.26% |    9 |  6.86% |    74717 | owen at delong.com
  6.42% |    7 |  7.12% |    77481 | billd at cait.wustl.edu
  3.67% |    4 |  9.44% |   102766 | bensons at queuefull.net
  0.92% |    1 |  9.47% |   103090 | marla.azinger at ftr.com
  4.59% |    5 |  4.43% |    48251 | cja at daydream.com
  0.92% |    1 |  7.32% |    79694 | info at arin.net
  4.59% |    5 |  2.85% |    31008 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com
  0.92% |    1 |  1.45% |    15819 | german at apnic.net
  0.92% |    1 |  0.96% |    10416 | linda at sat-tel.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.86% |     9341 | farmer at umn.edu
  0.92% |    1 |  0.80% |     8678 | asjl at ecs.vuw.ac.nz
  0.92% |    1 |  0.77% |     8353 | lsawyer at gci.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.73% |     7964 | bill at telnetcommunications.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.72% |     7841 | jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
  0.92% |    1 |  0.71% |     7773 | joe at oregon.uoregon.edu
  0.92% |    1 |  0.67% |     7348 | lear at cisco.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.62% |     6697 | randy.whitney at verizon.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.60% |     6570 | mysidia at gmail.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.60% |     6537 | narten at us.ibm.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.60% |     6515 | john.sweeting at twcable.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.56% |     6085 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net
  0.92% |    1 |  0.52% |     5649 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.51% |     5517 | sethm at rollernet.us
  0.92% |    1 |  0.46% |     5042 | springer at inlandnet.com
  0.92% |    1 |  0.43% |     4674 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  109 |100.00% |  1088806 | Total



From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 08:31:37 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:31:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C2C@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
	<503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD298@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<98955EF1-DFE3-4723-8900-67990BAF9166@arin.net>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C2C@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MnZyCM5SXHuz9bTHB1mRSGPFyVkhnujrGQ0YGJFhAJaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Agreed. The numbers tell an objective story.? But, not necessarily a clear
> or accurate one.? That's why interpretation and discussion are important to
> the process.
>
> bd
>
>


It's amazing that community can be so blatantly ignored and have their
comments and concerns casually brushed aside. This doesn't really do
anything to shore up my confidence that this hasn't been a done deal
for some time now.


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Nov 11 08:57:10 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:57:10 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MnZyCM5SXHuz9bTHB1mRSGPFyVkhnujrGQ0YGJFhAJaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1049E4CD7D25@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<6E0DAE39-D544-464A-91CE-AF62F58A209C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbVbXDSJsLOBqQ+HBSj21PKnbE6NLJz65-46aJ9CDcYEug@mail.gmail.com>
	<503D0119-E57B-4417-894C-70B6577E4192@arin.net>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD298@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<98955EF1-DFE3-4723-8900-67990BAF9166@arin.net>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C2C@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MnZyCM5SXHuz9bTHB1mRSGPFyVkhnujrGQ0YGJFhAJaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87C2FBBD-78DD-43CE-B8A7-C08E79AD2C8B@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It's amazing that community can be so blatantly ignored and have their
> comments and concerns casually brushed aside.  

Martin -

  To date, I do not believe that you've provided any feedback regarding the revised policy proposal text.  It would be helpful to hear about any comments and concerns that you might have about the draft policy since they are hard to consider if unstated.

Thanks.
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

From jdub at loudounwireless.com  Fri Nov 11 11:09:20 2011
From: jdub at loudounwireless.com (Westerman John)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:09:20 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
Message-ID: <B0F9F114-8E1D-47C3-A7EC-4B91623B07CB@loudounwireless.com>

All-

I am OK with your proposal as it is written.

Regards,

John

John Westerman
jdub at loudounwireless.com


On Nov 9, 2011, at 13:51 , ARIN wrote:

> Below is a revised staff and legal assessment for 2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers.
> 
> The draft policy text is below and available at: 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Communications and Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> 
> ##*##
> 
> 
> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT 2011-1 (Revised)
> 
> Draft Policy:  2011-1 ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
> 
> Date of Assessment:  9 Nov 2011
> 
> 1.  Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)
> 
> This revised proposal directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to allow specified transfers to or from organizations in other regions, and it eliminates the single aggregate language.
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Comments
> 
>      A.    ARIN Staff Comments
> 
> ?      The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically defined.  If adopted, staff would consider a ?compatible, needs-based policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, and to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.
>  
> ?      Allowing the transfer of number resources between RIRs will require careful coordination between RIRs in order to avoid reverse DNS zone fragmentation and synchronization problems.   The ability to maintain the necessary coordination between RIRs is unproven if Inter-RIR transfers become extremely common.
>  
> ?      This proposal doesn?t have any provisions to preclude organizations that have recently obtained IPv4 resources from ARIN from immediately releasing them for profit to a specified recipient. This policy may provide incentive for organizations to game the system by obtaining resources based on justified need, when the real intent is to sell them for profit. This behavior would directly violate certain terms and conditions of the RSA, but may be difficult for staff to distinguish from bona fide changes in circumstances.   
>  
> ?      General Staff Implementation Plan:
> 
> For transfers from the ARIN region into another RIR region:
> 
> 1.     ARIN receives the transfer request template from the requestor and verifies that they are the authorized registrant of the resources.
> 2.     ARIN verifies that the recipient RIR has been confirmed to have a compatible needs-based transfer policy and then forwards the request to the recipient RIR.
> 3.     The Recipient RIR determines if the recipient meets its relevant policies.
> 4.     The Recipient RIR confirms to ARIN that the customer has met its transfer policy as a recipient, and asks ARIN to authorize the release of the resource to the recipient RIR.
> 5.     ARIN coordinates with the Recipient RIR to complete the transfer.
> 
> For transfers into the ARIN region from another RIR region:
> 
> 1.     ARIN receives the transfer request template from the source RIR verifying that their customer is authorized to submit the transfer.
> 2.     ARIN contacts the proposed resource recipient to gather initial data needed to justify the 8.3 transfer and obtains a signed RSA from the resource recipient.
> 3.     ARIN applies its relevant policy criteria to the resource recipient
> 4.     When ready to approve, ARIN will contact the source RIR and have them authorize the release of the resource to ARIN.
> 5.     ARIN approves the transfer, receives transfer fee payment from the recipient, and will then complete the request by coordinating with the source RIR on the final transfer of the resource into the ARIN database (and de-registration from the source database), including the DNS zone coordination.
>  
>  
> 
>       B.  ARIN General Counsel Comments
> 
>  Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.    
> 
>  
> 
> 3.  Resource Impact
> 
> This policy would have major resource impact from an implementation aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 9-12 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:
> 
> -   Careful coordination between the RIRs on DNS issues and updates
> -   Updated guidelines
> -   Staff training
> 
>  
> 
> 4.  Draft Policy 2011-1 Text
> 
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> 
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in
> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
> recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> 
> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
> recipient RIR.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Upon ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees
> 
> Note from the AC:
> 
> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN
> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR
> Transfers. While there were concerns regarding the presented wording,
> there was significant continued support for a policy enabling
> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able
> to make them available to any organization with valid requirements.
> 
> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be
> cleanly inserted into the NRPM. The following is new language that
> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to
> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.
> 
> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy
> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized
> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a
> specified recipient. The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize
> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will
> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate
> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call.
> 
> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified
> recipient in another RIR's service region. This language specifies that
> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's
> policies. ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based
> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient
> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of
> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size
> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for
> obvious practical reasons.
> 
> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to
> forward this version to last call. Concerns expressed by some
> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being
> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN
> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to
> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/19/11 3:11 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> 
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to 
>> send an amended version of the following draft policy to an extended last call: 
>> 
>>   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers 
>> 
>> The AC provided the following statement: 
>> 
>> ******** 
>> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN 
>> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR 
>> Transfers.  While there were concerns regarding the presented wording, 
>> there was significant continued support for a policy enabling 
>> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able to make them available to any organization with valid requirements. 
>> 
>> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be 
>> cleanly inserted into the NRPM.  The following is new language that 
>> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to 
>> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions. 
>> 
>> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy 
>> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized 
>> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a 
>> specified recipient.  The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize 
>> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will 
>> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate 
>> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call. 
>> 
>> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified 
>> recipient in another RIR's service region.  This language specifies that 
>> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's 
>> policies.  ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based 
>> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient 
>> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of 
>> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size 
>> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for 
>> obvious practical reasons. 
>> 
>> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to 
>> forward this version to last call.  Concerns expressed by some 
>> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being 
>> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN 
>> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to 
>> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended. 
>> 
>> The AC thanks everyone in the community for their help in crafting this 
>> important policy and for your statements of support or other comments 
>> during Last Call. 
>> ******** 
>> 
>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should 
>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-1 will 
>> expire on 16 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review. 
>> 
>> The draft policy text is below and available at: 
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ 
>> 
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: 
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Communications and Member Services 
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
>> 
>> 
>> ## * ## 
>> 
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 
>> ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers 
>> 
>> Date/version: 14 October 2011 
>> 
>> Policy statement: 
>> 
>> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients 
>> 
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be 
>> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in 
>> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational 
>> recipient.  Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred 
>> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such 
>> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies. 
>> 
>> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another 
>> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR, 
>> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take 
>> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible, 
>> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of 
>> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the 
>> recipient RIR. 
>> 
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111111/869465fb/attachment.htm>

From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com  Fri Nov 11 14:57:48 2011
From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:57:48 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX8wZv90N=79AT8-YP0fB_VGo7ohBiFEOtvu9GFDCTv8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>

Hello Bill,

If I try to sum up your thoughts on the PDP would this be fair? You prefer
a process where policy development is driven more by the Internet
"Community" (both members and non-members of ARIN), and less by any
member-elected body.

On a related note, do you think there are any efficiencies to be gained by
granting more flexibility to a member-elected body rather than waiting for
a large body to reach an uncontested conclusion? Of course this is
provided it can be countered with appropriate checks and balances to try
and prevent the conflicts of interest you have mentioned? Do you think
this is possible?

One of the the items we discussed at length with the proposed PDP changes
was to incorporate the ability to poll the mailing list in addition to the
show of hands at a PPM. This expands the audience of those who can be
counted, and provides a wider sample of opinion not limited to those who
can travel to a meeting. Do you think this will help provide a better
corollary to the decisions the AC may want to make?

Thank you for driving this topic.
-Dan Alexander


On 11/10/11 8:56 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>  I have no objection
>>>>  to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely
>>>>  want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.
>>>
>>> The problem we're solving is the PDP's alienation of the people at the
>>> bottom of the bottom-up process, the bottom which serves as the
>>> foundation of ARIN's legitimacy.
>>>
>>> Despite its faults, the IRPEP offered amazing, brilliant public access
>>> to the process. A beacon in a night populated by the likes of ICANN
>>> and the FCC. The PDP falls far short of it.
>>
>> I'd like to hear from other policy proposal submitters in this area,
>> (as I'm not certain all have had experiences similar to your own) but
>> the feedback is helpful for the current revision process as well.
>
>Hi John,
>
>As would I. In fairness I'm almost certainly suffering a mild case of
>rose colored glasses.
>
>The final IRPEP before the we switched to the PDP is here:
>https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/iprep_archive_20060328.html
>
>The AC's behavior as individuals and as a group differed in some
>interesting ways due to the differences in the process. I'd like to
>talk my way through the process I remember:
>
>
>A. During the AC's initial review of a proposed policy, the AC
>operating under the IRPEP almost always fell into the role described
>in the IRPEP's point 2: the shepherd encouraged the author to make
>revisions he felt would enhance the proposal. After some back and
>forth the AC ended up at point 1: adopt as a formal policy proposal.
>
>B. When the AC exercised review point 3: abandon a proposal
>immediately, it was usually because the proposal didn't express
>actionable policy or it expressed a proposal so obviously the same as
>something the the community had considered and rejected that the toss
>was a no-brainer.
>
>C. I don't remember if anyone ever exercised the right to petition. If
>they did, they needed only 4 statements of support to adopt the text
>as a formal policy proposal. IIRC, the AC essentially didn't try to
>stop anything for which there was a chance of four people saying, "I
>want." This set a VERY low barrier to entry for anyone in the
>community with a number policy idea and allowed some obvious
>non-starters to burn time at the meeting.
>
>D. As you pointed out, the author retained control of the text. I
>recall the AC members offering any number of insightful suggestions
>along with the occasional flop, but the original author chose whether
>and how to integrate them. I personally remember Bill Darte's very
>valuable help with my own first attempt at drafting a policy.
>
>E. Presentation at the meetings was uneven. Some authors made
>energetic presentations with lively Q&A. In other cases the text was
>read in a monotone on behalf of an author who wasn't there. In some
>cases the text stayed in flux up to and during the presentation. It
>became difficult count the consensus because folks had spoken to so
>many different versions.
>
>F. At the meeting, consensus was polled and counted.
>
>G. After the meeting, the AC made its official analysis and either
>elected to abandon the proposal or move it to last call. I don't
>recall the text seeing revision of any significance at this point,
>though maybe someone can point out an example where it was. I don't
>remember the AC ever failing to move a popular proposal to last call.
>I recall a few contentious proposals that had at least as much
>opposition as support making it to last call.
>
>H. The last call was relatively brief and was basically a time to get
>your final word in on the last revision of the text. It was really
>up-or-down, not a time for suggesting change.
>
>I. If the text survived last call without a material change in
>consensus from the meeting and discussion then the AC generally
>recommended it to the board for adoption.
>
>J. A fair number of proposals didn't arrive at the board in the form
>of actionable policy language ready to be dropped in to the NRPM, so
>the board often did a bit of work tweaking the text.
>
>
>Regards,
>Bill Herrin
>
>-- 
>William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Nov 11 16:24:38 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:24:38 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <4EBD9296.3080304@umn.edu>

On 11/11/11 13:57 CST, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> One of the the items we discussed at length with the proposed PDP changes
> was to incorporate the ability to poll the mailing list in addition to the
> show of hands at a PPM. This expands the audience of those who can be
> counted, and provides a wider sample of opinion not limited to those who
> can travel to a meeting. Do you think this will help provide a better
> corollary to the decisions the AC may want to make?

I would add that ARIN currently has fairly robust remote participation 
capabilities, so travel itself shouldn't be a big barrier to 
participation.  However, even with remote participation you still need 
to be available and participate on a timetable that is not of your 
choosing or necessarily convenient.  Whereas such a pooling mechanism 
would allow much more asynchronous participation.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov 11 16:38:51 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:38:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAP-guGX8wZv90N=79AT8-YP0fB_VGo7ohBiFEOtvu9GFDCTv8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX=jUyZg2HzrLG202xHWSN184NmZS336dGCwFcx6OQKiA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alexander, Daniel
<Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> If I try to sum up your thoughts on the PDP would this be fair? You prefer
> a process where policy development is driven more by the Internet
> "Community" (both members and non-members of ARIN), and less by any
> member-elected body.

Hi Dan,

Not driven by. Done by. World of difference.

I "drive" U.S. policy by voting for congress and president and by
writing them letters. For a couple years, even by working for them
directly. But I have virtually no stake in any of the details. That's
all the doing of those "a-holes in Washington" who on a good day are
knuckle-headed and on a bad day are filthy corrupt.

If I write a policy, it's mine. If I gain the consensus of my fellows
and something I wrote is adopted then that piece of the NRPM is there
because of me. Even if I just sit on the sidelines, the fact that I
can be the one to step up next cycle on a matter I care about and be
judged only by my peers... That EMPOWERS me. It gives me an ownership
of and responsibility for the resulting policy. It gives me a personal
stake in the continued success of the organization which administers
that policy.

On the flip side, I cobble together an idea and then I'm forced to
turn it over to a cabal I had no choice in selecting. If they don't
reject it out of hand, they committee-rewrite it a few of times. I
have no stake in that. If I'm very lucky it still does something
vaguely similar to what I wanted. I may acquiesce but enthusiastic
consent? No. Almost never.



> On a related note, do you think there are any efficiencies to be gained by
> granting more flexibility to a member-elected body rather than waiting for
> a large body to reach an uncontested conclusion? Of course this is
> provided it can be countered with appropriate checks and balances to try
> and prevent the conflicts of interest you have mentioned? Do you think
> this is possible?

I believe this would be disastrous and doubt that any effective set of
checks and balances can be found. Moreover, efficiency and speed are
inimical to consensus. In the rush, you can't help but leave behind
individuals who, with a just little more care, could have been drawn
in to the fold.


> One of the the items we discussed at length with the proposed PDP changes
> was to incorporate the ability to poll the mailing list in addition to the
> show of hands at a PPM. This expands the audience of those who can be
> counted, and provides a wider sample of opinion not limited to those who
> can travel to a meeting. Do you think this will help provide a better
> corollary to the decisions the AC may want to make?

No.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 17:14:53 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:14:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on PP-158
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>

PPML:

Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
additional suggestions welcome.


Continue or abandon?

Best,

Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
ARIN Advisory Council Member


Latest update to proposal:


>
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>>
>> ?1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Multiple Discreet Networks Policy
>> ?2. Proposal Originator
>> ? ? ? ?1. name: Owen DeLong
>> ? ? ? ?2. e-mail: owen at XX
>> ? ? ? ?3. telephone: 408-XX
>> ? ? ? ?4. organization: Hurricane Electric
> ?3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>> ?4. Date: 3 October, 2011
>> ?5. Proposal type: modify
>> ?6. Policy term: permanent
>> ?7. Policy statement:
>>
>> Modify section 4.5 of the NRPM as follows:
>>
>> Replace 4.5.2 with: The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>
> Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy.
>> Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>
>> Move 4.5.2 a, b, and c into new 4.5.3.
>>
>> Renumber existing 4.5.3 et. seq. to accommodate new 4.5.3 (4.5.3->4.5.4, etc.).
>>
>
> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>
> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>
> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>
> 4.5.1 The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities.
> 4.5.2 The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
> 4.5.3 Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
> ?a. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
> ?b. Geographic distance and diversity between networks,
> ?c. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
> 4.5.4 The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
> 4.5.6 The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized.
> 4.5.7 The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account.
>
>> ?8. Rationale:
>>
>> Recent discussions on the PPML have shown that while ARIN is correctly applying the policy as intended,
>> there are those which interpret the existing wording differently.
>>
>> This proposal seeks to clarify the meaning in line with the current and intended application of the policy.
>>
>> ?9. Timetable for implementation:
>>
>> Immediate
>>
>> END OF TEMPLATE


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov 11 18:12:15 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:12:15 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
> 82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
> and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
> staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
> exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
> interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
> about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
> additional suggestions welcome.

Hi Marty,

I don't remember the original "misinterpretation" of the MDN policy.
Can you provide a pointer to that discussion?

The way it read (to me) before the change was that a compelling need
was something like one of the enumerated cases. The way it reads after
the change is that compelling need is not defined but a discrete
network is something like one of the enumerated cases. Is that the
intent?

When practical, renumbering sections is worth avoiding. We've built up
a mass of historical commentary on ARIN policy that refers to it by
section. When the section numbers are reused for something different,
it can confuse later analysis of that commentary.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


>
>
> Continue or abandon?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> ARIN Advisory Council Member
>
>
> Latest update to proposal:
>
>
>>
>>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>>>
>>> ?1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Multiple Discreet Networks Policy
>>> ?2. Proposal Originator
>>> ? ? ? ?1. name: Owen DeLong
>>> ? ? ? ?2. e-mail: owen at XX
>>> ? ? ? ?3. telephone: 408-XX
>>> ? ? ? ?4. organization: Hurricane Electric
>> ?3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>>> ?4. Date: 3 October, 2011
>>> ?5. Proposal type: modify
>>> ?6. Policy term: permanent
>>> ?7. Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Modify section 4.5 of the NRPM as follows:
>>>
>>> Replace 4.5.2 with: The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>>
>> Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy.
>>> Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>>
>>> Move 4.5.2 a, b, and c into new 4.5.3.
>>>
>>> Renumber existing 4.5.3 et. seq. to accommodate new 4.5.3 (4.5.3->4.5.4, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>>
>> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>>
>> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>>
>> 4.5.1 The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities.
>> 4.5.2 The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>> 4.5.3 Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>> ?a. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
>> ?b. Geographic distance and diversity between networks,
>> ?c. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
>> 4.5.4 The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
>> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
>> 4.5.6 The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized.
>> 4.5.7 The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account.
>>
>>> ?8. Rationale:
>>>
>>> Recent discussions on the PPML have shown that while ARIN is correctly applying the policy as intended,
>>> there are those which interpret the existing wording differently.
>>>
>>> This proposal seeks to clarify the meaning in line with the current and intended application of the policy.
>>>
>>> ?9. Timetable for implementation:
>>>
>>> Immediate
>>>
>>> END OF TEMPLATE
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Nov 11 18:27:13 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:27:13 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>



On 11/11/11 17:12 CST, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan<hannigan at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
>> 82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
>> and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
>> staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
>> exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
>> interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
>> about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
>> additional suggestions welcome.
>
> Hi Marty,
>
> I don't remember the original "misinterpretation" of the MDN policy.
> Can you provide a pointer to that discussion?

I believe the thread in question starts with this email;
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-September/023235.html

> The way it read (to me) before the change was that a compelling need
> was something like one of the enumerated cases. The way it reads after
> the change is that compelling need is not defined but a discrete
> network is something like one of the enumerated cases. Is that the
> intent?
>
> When practical, renumbering sections is worth avoiding. We've built up
> a mass of historical commentary on ARIN policy that refers to it by
> section. When the section numbers are reused for something different,
> it can confuse later analysis of that commentary.

That is good feedback.

However, do you believe this is something we should be working on?
If so, then is this text useful to start working with?

Or in other words, do you think this is something the AC should put on 
the docket or not?

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 18:27:22 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:27:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5NAgLOgXOAZ==U4LxMvMj5C-r5Tn-eCdLdaQ3DdFkJ6JA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
>> 82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
>> and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
>> staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
>> exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
>> interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
>> about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
>> additional suggestions welcome.
>
> Hi Marty,
>
> I don't remember the original "misinterpretation" of the MDN policy.
> Can you provide a pointer to that discussion?

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-September/023235.html

>
> The way it read (to me) before the change was that a compelling need
> was something like one of the enumerated cases. The way it reads after
> the change is that compelling need is not defined but a discrete
> network is something like one of the enumerated cases. Is that the
> intent?

I believe so.

> When practical, renumbering sections is worth avoiding. We've built up
> a mass of historical commentary on ARIN policy that refers to it by
> section. When the section numbers are reused for something different,
> it can confuse later analysis of that commentary.
>

So noted.


Best,

Martin Hannigan
ARIN Advisory Council Member


From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 18:31:41 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:31:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggested update to PP 157
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5N+RtsDsOti_sHMY+YEYOvp2vUWHi2vXLTR11jZzdQ5ww@mail.gmail.com>

Policy statement:  Number resources within the ARIN region may be
released to ARIN by an authorized resource holder for transfer to a
specified recipient who qualifies for resources under current ARIN
policy.

Rationale:

The original text was overly complex and imprecise. The modified
language has been reduced to be clear with respect to allowing
specified transfers of "number resources". The definition of "number
resources" is any IPv4 address or addresses, IPV6 address or addresses
or a 2 byte or 4 byte ASN individually or collectively.

The edits that I'm suggesting match almost verbatim comments and
suggestions from the staff C/U.

Best Regards,

-M<


From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Fri Nov 11 18:33:37 2011
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:33:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers -
	RevisedAssessment
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<B0F9F114-8E1D-47C3-A7EC-4B91623B07CB@loudounwireless.com>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C31@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

Thanks for the feedback John.

Everyone else, for or against the DP...please provide your feedback and if for or against, any concrete input on ways to improve it are welcome.

bd


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Westerman John
Sent: Fri 11/11/2011 10:09 AM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - RevisedAssessment
 
All-

I am OK with your proposal as it is written.

Regards,

John

John Westerman
jdub at loudounwireless.com


On Nov 9, 2011, at 13:51 , ARIN wrote:

> Below is a revised staff and legal assessment for 2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers.
> 
> The draft policy text is below and available at: 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Communications and Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> 
> ##*##
> 
> 
> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT 2011-1 (Revised)
> 
> Draft Policy:  2011-1 ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
> 
> Date of Assessment:  9 Nov 2011
> 
> 1.  Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)
> 
> This revised proposal directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to allow specified transfers to or from organizations in other regions, and it eliminates the single aggregate language.
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Comments
> 
>      A.    ARIN Staff Comments
> 
> ?      The phrase, "compatible, needs-based policies" is not specifically defined.  If adopted, staff would consider a "compatible, needs-based policy" for outward transfers as a transfer policy at another RIR that requires the recipient to have operational need for the address space, and to demonstrate that need to their RIR for transfer approval.
>  
> ?      Allowing the transfer of number resources between RIRs will require careful coordination between RIRs in order to avoid reverse DNS zone fragmentation and synchronization problems.   The ability to maintain the necessary coordination between RIRs is unproven if Inter-RIR transfers become extremely common.
>  
> ?      This proposal doesn't have any provisions to preclude organizations that have recently obtained IPv4 resources from ARIN from immediately releasing them for profit to a specified recipient. This policy may provide incentive for organizations to game the system by obtaining resources based on justified need, when the real intent is to sell them for profit. This behavior would directly violate certain terms and conditions of the RSA, but may be difficult for staff to distinguish from bona fide changes in circumstances.   
>  
> ?      General Staff Implementation Plan:
> 
> For transfers from the ARIN region into another RIR region:
> 
> 1.     ARIN receives the transfer request template from the requestor and verifies that they are the authorized registrant of the resources.
> 2.     ARIN verifies that the recipient RIR has been confirmed to have a compatible needs-based transfer policy and then forwards the request to the recipient RIR.
> 3.     The Recipient RIR determines if the recipient meets its relevant policies.
> 4.     The Recipient RIR confirms to ARIN that the customer has met its transfer policy as a recipient, and asks ARIN to authorize the release of the resource to the recipient RIR.
> 5.     ARIN coordinates with the Recipient RIR to complete the transfer.
> 
> For transfers into the ARIN region from another RIR region:
> 
> 1.     ARIN receives the transfer request template from the source RIR verifying that their customer is authorized to submit the transfer.
> 2.     ARIN contacts the proposed resource recipient to gather initial data needed to justify the 8.3 transfer and obtains a signed RSA from the resource recipient.
> 3.     ARIN applies its relevant policy criteria to the resource recipient
> 4.     When ready to approve, ARIN will contact the source RIR and have them authorize the release of the resource to ARIN.
> 5.     ARIN approves the transfer, receives transfer fee payment from the recipient, and will then complete the request by coordinating with the source RIR on the final transfer of the resource into the ARIN database (and de-registration from the source database), including the DNS zone coordination.
>  
>  
> 
>       B.  ARIN General Counsel Comments
> 
>  Adoption of this policy will materially assist ARIN's legal position.    
> 
>  
> 
> 3.  Resource Impact
> 
> This policy would have major resource impact from an implementation aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 9-12 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:
> 
> -   Careful coordination between the RIRs on DNS issues and updates
> -   Updated guidelines
> -   Staff training
> 
>  
> 
> 4.  Draft Policy 2011-1 Text
> 
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> 
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be?> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in?> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational?> recipient. Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred?> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such?> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> 
> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another?> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,?> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take?> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,?> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of?> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the?> recipient RIR.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Upon ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees
> 
> Note from the AC:
> 
> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN?> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR?> Transfers. While there were concerns regarding the presented wording,?> there was significant continued support for a policy enabling?> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able?> to make them available to any organization with valid requirements.
> 
> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be?> cleanly inserted into the NRPM. The following is new language that?> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to?> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions.
> 
> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy?> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized?> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a?> specified recipient. The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize?> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will?> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate?> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call.
> 
> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified?> recipient in another RIR's service region. This language specifies that?> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's?> policies. ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based?> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient?> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of?> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size?> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for?> obvious practical reasons.
> 
> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to?> forward this version to last call. Concerns expressed by some?> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being?> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN?> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to?> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/19/11 3:11 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> 
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to 
>> send an amended version of the following draft policy to an extended last call: 
>> 
>>   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers 
>> 
>> The AC provided the following statement: 
>> 
>> ******** 
>> The Advisory Council reviewed the results of feedback from the ARIN 
>> XXVIII Public Policy Meeting concerning Draft Policy 2011-1 Inter-RIR 
>> Transfers.  While there were concerns regarding the presented wording, 
>> there was significant continued support for a policy enabling 
>> Inter-Regional transfers of IPv4 number resources from organizations able to make them available to any organization with valid requirements. 
>> 
>> In addition to cumbersome wording, the presented text could not be 
>> cleanly inserted into the NRPM.  The following is new language that 
>> directly modifies section 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients" to 
>> allow such transfers to or from organizations in other regions. 
>> 
>> The first paragraph is a modified version of the current 8.3 policy 
>> language, envisioning resources being released to ARIN by the authorized 
>> resources holder or additionally by another RIR to be transferred to a 
>> specified recipient.  The second sentence was reorganized to emphasize 
>> that it applies to an organization within the ARIN region that will 
>> receive such a specified transfer, and to eliminate the single aggregate 
>> language per 2011-10 which is also being sent to last call. 
>> 
>> The new second paragraph adds language enabling transfers to a specified 
>> recipient in another RIR's service region.  This language specifies that 
>> such recipients justify their need to their RIR, following that RIR's 
>> policies.  ARIN will verify that there is a compatible needs based 
>> policy that the other RIR will use to evaluate the need of the recipient 
>> and that both RIR's agree to the transfer. Implicit in the intent of 
>> the language presented and in conformance with statements made, the size 
>> of the block to be transferred is identified as /24 or larger, for 
>> obvious practical reasons. 
>> 
>> In accordance with concern for immediate adoption, the AC chose to 
>> forward this version to last call.  Concerns expressed by some 
>> stakeholders for further controls were noted by the AC, and are being 
>> considered for future policy modification, assuaged in part by ARIN 
>> staff assurances that if any significant abuse of this policy were to 
>> occur, then the policy could easily be suspended. 
>> 
>> The AC thanks everyone in the community for their help in crafting this 
>> important policy and for your statements of support or other comments 
>> during Last Call. 
>> ******** 
>> 
>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should 
>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2011-1 will 
>> expire on 16 November 2011. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review. 
>> 
>> The draft policy text is below and available at: 
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ 
>> 
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: 
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Communications and Member Services 
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
>> 
>> 
>> ## * ## 
>> 
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 
>> ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers 
>> 
>> Date/version: 14 October 2011 
>> 
>> Policy statement: 
>> 
>> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients 
>> 
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be 
>> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder or another RIR, in 
>> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational 
>> recipient.  Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred 
>> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such 
>> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies. 
>> 
>> IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another 
>> RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR, 
>> according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take 
>> place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible, 
>> needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of 
>> /24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the 
>> recipient RIR. 
>> 
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111111/bfc6aa2c/attachment.htm>

From joe at oregon.uoregon.edu  Fri Nov 11 18:33:29 2011
From: joe at oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggested update to PP 157
Message-ID: <11111115332973_2B89B@oregon.uoregon.edu>

Martin commented:

#Policy statement:  Number resources within the ARIN region may be
#released to ARIN by an authorized resource holder for transfer to a
#specified recipient who qualifies for resources under current ARIN
#policy.
#
#Rationale:
#
#The original text was overly complex and imprecise. The modified
#language has been reduced to be clear with respect to allowing
#specified transfers of "number resources". The definition of "number
#resources" is any IPv4 address or addresses, IPV6 address or addresses
#or a 2 byte or 4 byte ASN individually or collectively.
#
#The edits that I'm suggesting match almost verbatim comments and
#suggestions from the staff C/U.

Couple of points of clarification:

1) Are Resources Transferable "En Bloc" Only, or Divisibly? That is,
would your proposed policy statement allow a current resource holder
to voluntarily deaggregate a currently held resource as part of the 
transfer process, or would resources only be able to be transferedable 
as a single non-deaggregable entity?

For example, if the resource holder currently has an IPv4 /19, would 
the current resource holder be able to deaggregate that /19 into 
multiple smaller netblocks, perhaps with some part of the block
retained for their own use, and the remainder of the block potentially
further subdivided to enable targeted transfers to different specified 
recipients? For example, could the /19 be broken up into /24s, with
each /24 hypothetically going to a different targeted recipient?

Would there be any limit to how small the deaggregated chunks might 
get? 

2) What About Considerations Related to Growth in the Routing Table?

Under the proposed policy, would there be any requirement that multiple 
netblocks going to the same targeted recipient be contiguous/aggregable
if at all possible?

Or could someone (perhaps an SEO person) specifically ask for, and 
receive, intentionally disjoint/non-contiguous blocks from a single 
deaggregated larger block?

3) Is Address Space Fungible, Or Is A Designated Transfer For A Specific
Asset, And ONLY For That Asset, Under Your Policy?

Under the proposed policy, could ARIN substitute a block of the same 
size from address inventory it currently holds, if doing so would 
facilitate the recipient having a single aggregable block rather than 
two non-contiguous/non-aggregable blocks? 

Or are some netblocks special/non-fungible, either more or less valuable
than others?

Thanks for clarification on these three key points as they relate to your
policy statement.

Regards,

Joe St Sauver

Disclaimer: all opinions/questions purely my own.


From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Nov 11 19:55:44 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:55:44 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggested update to PP 157
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5N+RtsDsOti_sHMY+YEYOvp2vUWHi2vXLTR11jZzdQ5ww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5N+RtsDsOti_sHMY+YEYOvp2vUWHi2vXLTR11jZzdQ5ww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EBDC410.8000701@umn.edu>


On 11/11/11 17:31 CST, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Policy statement:  Number resources within the ARIN region may be
> released to ARIN by an authorized resource holder for transfer to a
> specified recipient who qualifies for resources under current ARIN
> policy.
>
> Rationale:
>
> The original text was overly complex and imprecise. The modified
> language has been reduced to be clear with respect to allowing
> specified transfers of "number resources". The definition of "number
> resources" is any IPv4 address or addresses, IPV6 address or addresses
> or a 2 byte or 4 byte ASN individually or collectively.
>
> The edits that I'm suggesting match almost verbatim comments and
> suggestions from the staff C/U.

While I still can't support this text as written, more on that in a bit. 
  This is much cleaner text, and deals with the editorial issues I had 
with the original version, except I have a new one now;

A suggestion from the lessons I'm taking out of the 2011-1 debacle; The 
title of this policy proposal is "Section 8.3 Simplification", note that 
wasn't included with this email, and I had to go look.  I believe this 
intends to completely replace section 8.3.  So, then lets either add the 
NRPM section number and title into the policy text or clearly state that 
this will completely replace NRPM section 8.3 in the rationale.  Maybe 
even go for triple overkill and have it in the title, the policy text, 
and the rationale. :)  Going only from the email you just sent, the fact 
that text was to replace Section 8.3 wasn't abundantly clear.  I was 
able to figure it out, but you get my point.

Now to policy issues;

I support adding designated transfers for ASNs, to the currently allowed 
IPv4 resources, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed. 
However, before I can support designated transfers for IPv6 resources 
there are a whole number of technical issues that would need to be 
discussed and successfully resolved.  Like; What would be the effect on 
sparse allocation?  We would do next nibble boundary of which 
allocation?  If I have a /32 currently, can I receive a /32, only a /28 
that ARIN would round me up to, or anything between?

I'm not saying these issues can't be resolved; but that I can't support 
designated transfers for IPv6 without resolving them first.  I imagine 
we could keep 8.3 as simple as you propose and maybe deal with some of 
these issues in the details of the IPv6 policy sections.

If what the community wants in the short run is ASNs to be transferable, 
I support that and think that is fairly easy.  Heck, the current ASN 
policy is only about three paragraphs. However, IPv6 designated 
transfers are going to need to be thought through.  I think that can be 
done, if the community wants, but it will take work, probably more than 
a little bit too.

My personal suggestion is to limit designated transfers to IPv4 and ASNs 
for now and come back and deal with designated transfers for IPv6 later. 
  Something tells me we have other fish to fry over the next year or two.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From mpetach at netflight.com  Fri Nov 11 20:27:52 2011
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:27:52 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Version 1.1 (grammatical cleanup and clarification)
 of Proposal 158 (Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks IPv4 Policy)
In-Reply-To: <79C1FBE8-D313-49A4-9387-9D8DF3E5EA96@delong.com>
References: <9F3A0E45-9B08-4256-8A3F-B03496E0629F@delong.com>
	<79C1FBE8-D313-49A4-9387-9D8DF3E5EA96@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmG1=rk2Uo+AyHoUMUYe_8YR9HDjpE2YkyJVSkaZbTJrzeG3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Below is an update to Proposal 158. The changes are very minor (corrected some
> typos) and do not change the meaning or intent at all.
...
> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>
> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>
> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>
...
> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.

I'm sorry, but "the organization may alternatively qualify for
additional internet
address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller
than ARIN's current minimum allocation size." seems to be a sentence fragment,
and doesn't parse into meaningful English.

Could that section be rewritten in a way that makes sense?  I have
no idea what it is trying to say.  :(

Thanks!

Matt


From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 11 20:40:31 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:40:31 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <04B48A8B-9D1E-4249-B29B-23721F0DD0E0@delong.com>

As I have stated before, another option would be to open the election of
the AC up to the wider community, at least to the extent that it is practical,
along the lines of how the NRO NC is currently elected, for example.

Owen

On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> Hello Bill,
> 
> If I try to sum up your thoughts on the PDP would this be fair? You prefer
> a process where policy development is driven more by the Internet
> "Community" (both members and non-members of ARIN), and less by any
> member-elected body.
> 
> On a related note, do you think there are any efficiencies to be gained by
> granting more flexibility to a member-elected body rather than waiting for
> a large body to reach an uncontested conclusion? Of course this is
> provided it can be countered with appropriate checks and balances to try
> and prevent the conflicts of interest you have mentioned? Do you think
> this is possible?
> 
> One of the the items we discussed at length with the proposed PDP changes
> was to incorporate the ability to poll the mailing list in addition to the
> show of hands at a PPM. This expands the audience of those who can be
> counted, and provides a wider sample of opinion not limited to those who
> can travel to a meeting. Do you think this will help provide a better
> corollary to the decisions the AC may want to make?
> 
> Thank you for driving this topic.
> -Dan Alexander
> 
> 
> On 11/10/11 8:56 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>> I have no objection
>>>>> to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely
>>>>> want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem we're solving is the PDP's alienation of the people at the
>>>> bottom of the bottom-up process, the bottom which serves as the
>>>> foundation of ARIN's legitimacy.
>>>> 
>>>> Despite its faults, the IRPEP offered amazing, brilliant public access
>>>> to the process. A beacon in a night populated by the likes of ICANN
>>>> and the FCC. The PDP falls far short of it.
>>> 
>>> I'd like to hear from other policy proposal submitters in this area,
>>> (as I'm not certain all have had experiences similar to your own) but
>>> the feedback is helpful for the current revision process as well.
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> As would I. In fairness I'm almost certainly suffering a mild case of
>> rose colored glasses.
>> 
>> The final IRPEP before the we switched to the PDP is here:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/iprep_archive_20060328.html
>> 
>> The AC's behavior as individuals and as a group differed in some
>> interesting ways due to the differences in the process. I'd like to
>> talk my way through the process I remember:
>> 
>> 
>> A. During the AC's initial review of a proposed policy, the AC
>> operating under the IRPEP almost always fell into the role described
>> in the IRPEP's point 2: the shepherd encouraged the author to make
>> revisions he felt would enhance the proposal. After some back and
>> forth the AC ended up at point 1: adopt as a formal policy proposal.
>> 
>> B. When the AC exercised review point 3: abandon a proposal
>> immediately, it was usually because the proposal didn't express
>> actionable policy or it expressed a proposal so obviously the same as
>> something the the community had considered and rejected that the toss
>> was a no-brainer.
>> 
>> C. I don't remember if anyone ever exercised the right to petition. If
>> they did, they needed only 4 statements of support to adopt the text
>> as a formal policy proposal. IIRC, the AC essentially didn't try to
>> stop anything for which there was a chance of four people saying, "I
>> want." This set a VERY low barrier to entry for anyone in the
>> community with a number policy idea and allowed some obvious
>> non-starters to burn time at the meeting.
>> 
>> D. As you pointed out, the author retained control of the text. I
>> recall the AC members offering any number of insightful suggestions
>> along with the occasional flop, but the original author chose whether
>> and how to integrate them. I personally remember Bill Darte's very
>> valuable help with my own first attempt at drafting a policy.
>> 
>> E. Presentation at the meetings was uneven. Some authors made
>> energetic presentations with lively Q&A. In other cases the text was
>> read in a monotone on behalf of an author who wasn't there. In some
>> cases the text stayed in flux up to and during the presentation. It
>> became difficult count the consensus because folks had spoken to so
>> many different versions.
>> 
>> F. At the meeting, consensus was polled and counted.
>> 
>> G. After the meeting, the AC made its official analysis and either
>> elected to abandon the proposal or move it to last call. I don't
>> recall the text seeing revision of any significance at this point,
>> though maybe someone can point out an example where it was. I don't
>> remember the AC ever failing to move a popular proposal to last call.
>> I recall a few contentious proposals that had at least as much
>> opposition as support making it to last call.
>> 
>> H. The last call was relatively brief and was basically a time to get
>> your final word in on the last revision of the text. It was really
>> up-or-down, not a time for suggesting change.
>> 
>> I. If the text survived last call without a material change in
>> consensus from the meeting and discussion then the AC generally
>> recommended it to the board for adoption.
>> 
>> J. A fair number of proposals didn't arrive at the board in the form
>> of actionable policy language ready to be dropped in to the NRPM, so
>> the board often did a bit of work tweaking the text.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> -- 
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 11 20:45:53 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:45:53 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX=jUyZg2HzrLG202xHWSN184NmZS336dGCwFcx6OQKiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGX8wZv90N=79AT8-YP0fB_VGo7ohBiFEOtvu9GFDCTv8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE2BFD2.17609%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<CAP-guGX=jUyZg2HzrLG202xHWSN184NmZS336dGCwFcx6OQKiA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51AB56E7-6D6D-49D7-BC2E-741ADF33C47F@delong.com>


On Nov 11, 2011, at 1:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alexander, Daniel
> <Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> If I try to sum up your thoughts on the PDP would this be fair? You prefer
>> a process where policy development is driven more by the Internet
>> "Community" (both members and non-members of ARIN), and less by any
>> member-elected body.
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Not driven by. Done by. World of difference.
> 
> I "drive" U.S. policy by voting for congress and president and by
> writing them letters. For a couple years, even by working for them
> directly. But I have virtually no stake in any of the details. That's
> all the doing of those "a-holes in Washington" who on a good day are
> knuckle-headed and on a bad day are filthy corrupt.
> 
> If I write a policy, it's mine. If I gain the consensus of my fellows
> and something I wrote is adopted then that piece of the NRPM is there
> because of me. Even if I just sit on the sidelines, the fact that I
> can be the one to step up next cycle on a matter I care about and be
> judged only by my peers... That EMPOWERS me. It gives me an ownership
> of and responsibility for the resulting policy. It gives me a personal
> stake in the continued success of the organization which administers
> that policy.
> 
> On the flip side, I cobble together an idea and then I'm forced to
> turn it over to a cabal I had no choice in selecting. If they don't
> reject it out of hand, they committee-rewrite it a few of times. I
> have no stake in that. If I'm very lucky it still does something
> vaguely similar to what I wanted. I may acquiesce but enthusiastic
> consent? No. Almost never.
> 
If you can find 10 people that agree with you among your peers, you
can get your original text all the way to the board using the petition
process no matter what the AC did to it along the way.

I don't think referring to us as a cabal is a fair characterization.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 11 20:51:17 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:51:17 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B25D9E59-3B49-495B-B3D5-ECBF8A000D7A@delong.com>

Bill,

If you have a way to accomplish the rewrite that doesn't involve a renumber,
I'm all ears.

Owen

On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
>> 82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
>> and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
>> staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
>> exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
>> interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
>> about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
>> additional suggestions welcome.
> 
> Hi Marty,
> 
> I don't remember the original "misinterpretation" of the MDN policy.
> Can you provide a pointer to that discussion?
> 
> The way it read (to me) before the change was that a compelling need
> was something like one of the enumerated cases. The way it reads after
> the change is that compelling need is not defined but a discrete
> network is something like one of the enumerated cases. Is that the
> intent?
> 
> When practical, renumbering sections is worth avoiding. We've built up
> a mass of historical commentary on ARIN policy that refers to it by
> section. When the section numbers are reused for something different,
> it can confuse later analysis of that commentary.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Continue or abandon?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
>> ARIN Advisory Council Member
>> 
>> 
>> Latest update to proposal:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>>>> 
>>>>  1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Multiple Discreet Networks Policy
>>>>  2. Proposal Originator
>>>>        1. name: Owen DeLong
>>>>        2. e-mail: owen at XX
>>>>        3. telephone: 408-XX
>>>>        4. organization: Hurricane Electric
>>>  3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>>>>  4. Date: 3 October, 2011
>>>>  5. Proposal type: modify
>>>>  6. Policy term: permanent
>>>>  7. Policy statement:
>>>> 
>>>> Modify section 4.5 of the NRPM as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> Replace 4.5.2 with: The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>>> 
>>> Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy.
>>>> Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>>> 
>>>> Move 4.5.2 a, b, and c into new 4.5.3.
>>>> 
>>>> Renumber existing 4.5.3 et. seq. to accommodate new 4.5.3 (4.5.3->4.5.4, etc.).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>>> 
>>> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>>> 
>>> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>>> 
>>> 4.5.1 The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities.
>>> 4.5.2 The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>> 4.5.3 Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>>  a. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
>>>  b. Geographic distance and diversity between networks,
>>>  c. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
>>> 4.5.4 The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
>>> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
>>> 4.5.6 The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized.
>>> 4.5.7 The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account.
>>> 
>>>>  8. Rationale:
>>>> 
>>>> Recent discussions on the PPML have shown that while ARIN is correctly applying the policy as intended,
>>>> there are those which interpret the existing wording differently.
>>>> 
>>>> This proposal seeks to clarify the meaning in line with the current and intended application of the policy.
>>>> 
>>>>  9. Timetable for implementation:
>>>> 
>>>> Immediate
>>>> 
>>>> END OF TEMPLATE
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 11 21:00:14 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:00:14 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Version 1.1 (grammatical cleanup and clarification)
	of Proposal 158 (Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks IPv4 Policy)
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rk2Uo+AyHoUMUYe_8YR9HDjpE2YkyJVSkaZbTJrzeG3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F3A0E45-9B08-4256-8A3F-B03496E0629F@delong.com>
	<79C1FBE8-D313-49A4-9387-9D8DF3E5EA96@delong.com>
	<CAEmG1=rk2Uo+AyHoUMUYe_8YR9HDjpE2YkyJVSkaZbTJrzeG3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6A912C9F-2306-4537-9475-5FE1E5A3CFCE@delong.com>


On Nov 11, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Below is an update to Proposal 158. The changes are very minor (corrected some
>> typos) and do not change the meaning or intent at all.
> ...
>> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>> 
>> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>> 
>> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>> 
> ...
>> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
> 
> I'm sorry, but "the organization may alternatively qualify for
> additional internet
> address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller
> than ARIN's current minimum allocation size." seems to be a sentence fragment,
> and doesn't parse into meaningful English.
> 
> Could that section be rewritten in a way that makes sense?  I have
> no idea what it is trying to say.  :(
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Matt

Um, that part is the text from the existing policy copied verbatim. As such, it's
already on the books and doesn't really impact this proposal as yet. However...

In fairness, now that you point it out, I am confused by it as well. I will endeavor
to turn it into an English translation of my best guess in an additional text update,
but, I welcome comments from the community regarding what it should say in 
the meantime.

Owen



From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Nov 11 22:10:13 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:10:13 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Version 1.1 (grammatical cleanup and clarification)
 of Proposal 158 (Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks IPv4 Policy)
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rk2Uo+AyHoUMUYe_8YR9HDjpE2YkyJVSkaZbTJrzeG3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F3A0E45-9B08-4256-8A3F-B03496E0629F@delong.com>
	<79C1FBE8-D313-49A4-9387-9D8DF3E5EA96@delong.com>
	<CAEmG1=rk2Uo+AyHoUMUYe_8YR9HDjpE2YkyJVSkaZbTJrzeG3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MxJgT=JcyPEJz9yhmfET+FJQjSyVW7YRQeYyMcKEY41g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:

>> 4.5.5 [..] the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
>
> I'm sorry, but "the organization may alternatively qualify for
> additional internet
> address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller
> than ARIN's current minimum allocation size." seems to be a sentence fragment,
> and doesn't parse into meaningful English.
>
> Could that section be rewritten in a way that makes sense? ?I have
> no idea what it is trying to say. ?:(

Noted, and if this goes forward I'll make sure that it's addressed.

Best,

Martin Hannigan
ARIN Advisory Council Member


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov 11 23:43:42 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:43:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <B25D9E59-3B49-495B-B3D5-ECBF8A000D7A@delong.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B25D9E59-3B49-495B-B3D5-ECBF8A000D7A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUbtjjMx7vFJ4cz1-azUavojL1z5gz=-Q9U1GYY3Rf6aQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> If you have a way to accomplish the rewrite that doesn't involve a renumber,
> I'm all ears.

Instead of splitting 4.5.2 into 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, split it in to
4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2.

Not necessarily the best way, but it's -a- way.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bill at herrin.us  Sat Nov 12 00:01:40 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:01:40 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I believe the thread in question starts with this email;
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-September/023235.html

> However, do you believe this is something we should be working on?
> If so, then is this text useful to start working with?

Hi David,

What does Richard Steenbergen think? If he continues to see this as an
issue worth addressing, I'd roll with it for a while and see what sort
of response there is to docketed draft policy text.

Reading Richard's note, I think he's saying: the MDN policy would work
better and be more useful if ARIN simply accepts a registrant's
determination that a particular set of networks should be constructed
discretely from each other as opposed to ARIN determining whether the
need to do so is "compelling."

So, game it. Two identical sets of, let's say ten discrete networks as
discrete networks are defined. In one set ARIN assigns 10 distinct
address blocks based on the registrant's determination that the
networks are discrete. For the other set, ARIN determines there is no
compelling need and assigns a single address block for the registrant
to split among them as desired. In both cases we assume that no fraud
has occurred: the networks are in fact distinct.

Questions:

Are there any parameters for this game in which the registrant
acquires more IP addresses via the 10 distinct blocks? How much more?

Are there any parameters for the game in which the registrant gets too
few addresses via the single block method, requiring him to redesign
his networks to no longer be distinct?

Are there any parameters where more routes must be announced due to 10
distinct blocks? Remember, genuine distinct networks here, the
separation can be needless but there is no overt fraud. What about
parameters which leave no choice but for the single aggregate approach
to introduce more routes?

That's where I'd start looking to try to figure out whether this was a
real problem worth addressing, whether the protection being removed
had an important impact and what shape an alternate protection might
take in order to solve the problem. The answers would lead to more
questions and I'd follow them until I ran out of ideas.


I don't imagine this will have much of an impact on IPv4 one way or
another simply because v4 depletion moots the issue. However, we carry
this problem with us to IPv6 so if a game reveals substantive problem
scenarios then it's probably worth fixing.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Nov 12 08:16:19 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:16:19 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
 PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DAFB13A0-D1DB-4EC4-AE41-3D9D8CF1F6B4@corp.arin.net>

Note also that experiences in implementation of the Multiple 
Discrete Network policy is mentioned in the ARIN staff policy 
experience report at the ARIN Philly PPM:

   <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/thursday/nobile_policy_experience.pdf>

We provide policy experience reports to highlight areas of the 
NRPM which may not be worth reviewing for potential policy 
development work.  

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Sat Nov 12 12:50:51 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:50:51 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33223A53-47E4-4340-8513-6837FCF0EBEC@delong.com>


On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> I believe the thread in question starts with this email;
>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-September/023235.html
> 
>> However, do you believe this is something we should be working on?
>> If so, then is this text useful to start working with?
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> What does Richard Steenbergen think? If he continues to see this as an
> issue worth addressing, I'd roll with it for a while and see what sort
> of response there is to docketed draft policy text.
> 
> Reading Richard's note, I think he's saying: the MDN policy would work
> better and be more useful if ARIN simply accepts a registrant's
> determination that a particular set of networks should be constructed
> discretely from each other as opposed to ARIN determining whether the
> need to do so is "compelling."
> 
> So, game it. Two identical sets of, let's say ten discrete networks as
> discrete networks are defined. In one set ARIN assigns 10 distinct
> address blocks based on the registrant's determination that the
> networks are discrete. For the other set, ARIN determines there is no
> compelling need and assigns a single address block for the registrant
> to split among them as desired. In both cases we assume that no fraud
> has occurred: the networks are in fact distinct.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> Are there any parameters for this game in which the registrant
> acquires more IP addresses via the 10 distinct blocks? How much more?
> 

In general, the initial assignment will not be where this policy makes a
significant difference, but, instead, when the applicant runs out of space
in region G while A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and J still have space available.

In the non-discrete case, the applicant would be expected to move space
from one of the other regions into G to accommodate the need. In the
discrete case, the applicant is able to apply for an additional prefix for
region G separate from his utilization in the other regions.

> Are there any parameters where more routes must be announced due to 10
> distinct blocks? Remember, genuine distinct networks here, the
> separation can be needless but there is no overt fraud. What about
> parameters which leave no choice but for the single aggregate approach
> to introduce more routes?
> 

If the networks have separate routing policies, it will require a minimum of
10 announcements anyway. If they are not discrete from a routing policy
perspective, then, one announcement is possible. In the case where the
routing policies are distinct, expansion in on network will require additional
announcement(s) from that network specifically. In the case where the
routing policies are not distinct, the additional space could be aggregated
across the networks, at least theoretically.

> I don't imagine this will have much of an impact on IPv4 one way or
> another simply because v4 depletion moots the issue. However, we carry
> this problem with us to IPv6 so if a game reveals substantive problem
> scenarios then it's probably worth fixing.
> 

Not so much. The IPv6 MDN policy is already significantly more permissive
than the IPv4 policy.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Nov 12 14:09:31 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:09:31 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
 PP-158
In-Reply-To: <DAFB13A0-D1DB-4EC4-AE41-3D9D8CF1F6B4@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DAFB13A0-D1DB-4EC4-AE41-3D9D8CF1F6B4@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <95EA212C-6AED-403B-BC00-00D1CFE2C8E4@corp.arin.net>

Should read: "which MAY BE worth reviewing"...  (please ignore the extraneous 'not' in the sentence)

/John

On Nov 12, 2011, at 8:16 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> We provide policy experience reports to highlight areas of the 
> NRPM which may not be worth reviewing for potential policy 
> development work.  


From bill at herrin.us  Sat Nov 12 16:21:53 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:21:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <33223A53-47E4-4340-8513-6837FCF0EBEC@delong.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<33223A53-47E4-4340-8513-6837FCF0EBEC@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX+v93VoB+izdnW3=Yd9H-agsh_b1D0FJGUJeCg8xvemw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Are there any parameters for this game in which the registrant
>> acquires more IP addresses via the 10 distinct blocks? How much more?
>
> In general, the initial assignment will not be where this policy makes a
> significant difference, but, instead, when the applicant runs out of space
> in region G while A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and J still have space available.
>
> In the non-discrete case, the applicant would be expected to move space
> from one of the other regions into G to accommodate the need. In the
> discrete case, the applicant is able to apply for an additional prefix for
> region G separate from his utilization in the other regions.

Okay, let me tweak the parameters a little and present a scenario:

1. Registrant creates 8 discrete networks each of which just barely
qualifies for a /24. If ARIN did not treat them as discrete networks,
they would collectively qualify for a single /21.

2. Network A grows quickly while the other 7 stagnate. It now
qualifies for an additional /23. Had ARIN allocated the /21, the
registrant would have had sufficient addresses left in the /21 to
satisfy the demand.

Is that about the size of it? Or am I underselling the downside risk?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the finding of sufficient addresses
left in the /21 is actually in error, isn't it? Because of the /24
backbone boundary, network A would need some pretty wacky routing to
get that to work, would it not?  But that's *only* true if the network
is Internet-connected. For a DN connected only to other private
networks there would be no difference.



>> Are there any parameters where more routes must be announced due to 10
>> distinct blocks? Remember, genuine distinct networks here, the
>> separation can be needless but there is no overt fraud. What about
>> parameters which leave no choice but for the single aggregate approach
>> to introduce more routes?
>
> If the networks have separate routing policies, it will require a minimum of
> 10 announcements anyway. If they are not discrete from a routing policy
> perspective, then, one announcement is possible. In the case where the
> routing policies are distinct, expansion in on network will require additional
> announcement(s) from that network specifically. In the case where the
> routing policies are not distinct, the additional space could be aggregated
> across the networks, at least theoretically.

To me, that sort of implies that rather than asking ARIN to find a
compelling need, we should ask ARIN to confirm that the networks are
in fact discrete in that they do not share a common Internet backbone
access facility. In effect, the fact that the registrant found it
needful to physically connect the networks to the Internet with a
different set of lines *is* the compelling reason.

Here's a potential abuse scenario:

Registrant creates 8 distinct networks, all at the same building or
campus. Gets addresses from ARIN. Drops 7 of the networks' Internet
connections and sets up one of the 8 as an administratively distinct
"ISP" for the other 7.

How does/should the policy deal with that?


Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From owen at delong.com  Sun Nov 13 02:58:16 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:58:16 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX+v93VoB+izdnW3=Yd9H-agsh_b1D0FJGUJeCg8xvemw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<33223A53-47E4-4340-8513-6837FCF0EBEC@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGX+v93VoB+izdnW3=Yd9H-agsh_b1D0FJGUJeCg8xvemw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <920C6213-3758-43E8-AC93-F567EF3537EB@delong.com>


On Nov 12, 2011, at 1:21 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Are there any parameters for this game in which the registrant
>>> acquires more IP addresses via the 10 distinct blocks? How much more?
>> 
>> In general, the initial assignment will not be where this policy makes a
>> significant difference, but, instead, when the applicant runs out of space
>> in region G while A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and J still have space available.
>> 
>> In the non-discrete case, the applicant would be expected to move space
>> from one of the other regions into G to accommodate the need. In the
>> discrete case, the applicant is able to apply for an additional prefix for
>> region G separate from his utilization in the other regions.
> 
> Okay, let me tweak the parameters a little and present a scenario:
> 
> 1. Registrant creates 8 discrete networks each of which just barely
> qualifies for a /24. If ARIN did not treat them as discrete networks,
> they would collectively qualify for a single /21.
> 
> 2. Network A grows quickly while the other 7 stagnate. It now
> qualifies for an additional /23. Had ARIN allocated the /21, the
> registrant would have had sufficient addresses left in the /21 to
> satisfy the demand.
> 
> Is that about the size of it? Or am I underselling the downside risk?
> 

That's one possibility. However, note, if the 8 discrete networks are
discrete (as in can't share a routing policy), then, network A needs
additional space as moving space from one or more of the others
to A is not practical. (The smaller block(s) shifted to A wouldn't make
it into the global routing tables most likely.)

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the finding of sufficient addresses
> left in the /21 is actually in error, isn't it? Because of the /24
> backbone boundary, network A would need some pretty wacky routing to
> get that to work, would it not?  But that's *only* true if the network
> is Internet-connected. For a DN connected only to other private
> networks there would be no difference.
> 
If they all share a common routing policy (e.g. advertise the /21 externally
and not necessarily the more specifics), then, no, it's not in error. The
whacky prefixes would be strictly IGP and wouldn't impact any exterior
routing.

Hence the definition of discrete networks hinging (IMHO) on the need (or
lack thereof) for distinct routing policies.

> 
> 
>>> Are there any parameters where more routes must be announced due to 10
>>> distinct blocks? Remember, genuine distinct networks here, the
>>> separation can be needless but there is no overt fraud. What about
>>> parameters which leave no choice but for the single aggregate approach
>>> to introduce more routes?
>> 
>> If the networks have separate routing policies, it will require a minimum of
>> 10 announcements anyway. If they are not discrete from a routing policy
>> perspective, then, one announcement is possible. In the case where the
>> routing policies are distinct, expansion in on network will require additional
>> announcement(s) from that network specifically. In the case where the
>> routing policies are not distinct, the additional space could be aggregated
>> across the networks, at least theoretically.
> 
> To me, that sort of implies that rather than asking ARIN to find a
> compelling need, we should ask ARIN to confirm that the networks are
> in fact discrete in that they do not share a common Internet backbone
> access facility. In effect, the fact that the registrant found it
> needful to physically connect the networks to the Internet with a
> different set of lines *is* the compelling reason.
> 

This really depends on how you define "common internet backbone
access facility".

For example, 8 sites each of which has it's own uplink to an ISP and
no two of which share ISPs, but, which have an internal backbone
meshing the 8 sites such that any site can easily accept more than
its share of global traffic (e.g. they can advertise the /21 due to their
interior backbone capabilities) would not be discrete.

However, one could argue that they "are discrete" in fact because
they don't share a common upstream provider or a common backbone
access facility as you describe it.

> Here's a potential abuse scenario:
> 
> Registrant creates 8 distinct networks, all at the same building or
> campus. Gets addresses from ARIN. Drops 7 of the networks' Internet
> connections and sets up one of the 8 as an administratively distinct
> "ISP" for the other 7.
> 
> How does/should the policy deal with that?
> 


Frankly, this sets off my "extreme corner case" detector, but, I'll play
along...

This particular policy wouldn't deal with it until the applicant came for
more addresses. It would also depend on what is meant by your
term administratively distinct. For example, if it were spun off
into a separate organization or other wise transferred to a different
organization through a section 8 process, then, the remaining 7
would likely still qualify as discrete networks.

In the case where they remain part of the original ORG, the
alleged administrative distinction is not relevant to ARIN and
they would still be a single org. Since they now share a common
routing policy (everything through the one network) as far as the
outside world is concerned, I would say they are no longer
discrete networks in the meaning of the policy.

Whether or not this is the ideal ARIN response is an open question
and I"m frankly not sure I have an opinion. It's such an extreme
corner case that I can only see it coming up one of two ways:

1.	Someone is so determined to game the system that they will
	likely find a way no matter what policy we write. Clearly they
	are at least willing to walk right up to the boundary of fraud
	if not actually step over the boundary as to make the distinction
	largely academic.

or

2.	It really is a very bizarre scenario in that particular network
	in which case it would occur so infrequently as to be irrelevant
	in evaluating policy efficacy.

I would argue that the number of organizations willing to play that
close to the edge of address fraud is actually small enough as to
still render version 1 an irrelevant corner case as well.

Owen



From matt at conundrum.com  Sun Nov 13 09:42:25 2011
From: matt at conundrum.com (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:42:25 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVnL3jHDoxuHjXeSVk6Az2J5FXDNQ0AcL+KpYeN50EgUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0C14C302-30CE-4D23-BBF4-A748324C9555@rs.seastrom.com>
	<CADF5113.2EC3F%bill@telnetcommunications.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087DAD238@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<CAP-guGVnL3jHDoxuHjXeSVk6Az2J5FXDNQ0AcL+KpYeN50EgUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C4444783-109B-42B6-A7DB-BAFC7DA3AAFD@conundrum.com>


On 2011/11/10, at 15:54, William Herrin wrote:

> 2. The draft presented at the meeting required the parties to "meet
> both RIR's policies." The current draft guts that requirement,
> demanding each party meet only one part of one RIR's requirements. The
> PPM draft was vague. You might have understood it to intend what the
> revision offered. But some portion, possibly a majority of the
> community understood it differently and based their consent on the
> requirement that folks receiving addresses from ARIN meet at least as
> stringent policy requirements regardless of which region they're in.

If you recall, I got up to the mic to ask about this point specifically.  You're correct that the wording of the proposal required both RIR's policies to be met, but the language implied to me that wasn't the intent.  I asked for clarification, and the clarification we received was that the wording was flawed, and the intent was that each party should meet the relevant requirements of their local RIR (i.e. the transferor meets the requirements of a transferor in their region, and the recipient meets the requirements of a recipient in their region).  

To my recollection, nobody spoke out against this stated intent of the language, and nobody spoke out in favour of keeping the current wording.  In the end, the community gave the support previously indicated in the show of hands.  

I interpret that as the community supporting the intended meaning, rather than the flawed wording.  To me that is sufficient justification for the AC to clarify that wording prior to last call.





From matt at conundrum.com  Sun Nov 13 09:59:55 2011
From: matt at conundrum.com (Matthew Pounsett)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:59:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers -
	RevisedAssessment
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C31@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<B0F9F114-8E1D-47C3-A7EC-4B91623B07CB@loudounwireless.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C31@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <991F075B-5600-4714-A174-B7681F31C377@conundrum.com>


On 2011/11/11, at 18:33, Bill Darte wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback John.
> 
> Everyone else, for or against the DP...please provide your feedback and if for or against, any concrete input on ways to improve it are welcome.

I support the revised text sent to last call.





From bill at herrin.us  Mon Nov 14 00:10:45 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:10:45 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on
	PP-158
In-Reply-To: <920C6213-3758-43E8-AC93-F567EF3537EB@delong.com>
References: <CAMDXq5M_v7NwxPvRLncDwLmy+SGADsm6i3qZtBxDrpSkU-eftQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGW4AxXW4_Z0AebjpjPjNEVP7cuFteHxzDzs4ARBP6qHaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBDAF51.8000609@umn.edu>
	<CAP-guGWXcKrOnE4wGBZG4SB+M1R-bqk-gi8i67tB2wqFjUdZgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<33223A53-47E4-4340-8513-6837FCF0EBEC@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGX+v93VoB+izdnW3=Yd9H-agsh_b1D0FJGUJeCg8xvemw@mail.gmail.com>
	<920C6213-3758-43E8-AC93-F567EF3537EB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVSKx_P6=iyTU_sg1X=n4+cRyZXCK+wHjN_8_S4YTtYHw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Frankly, this sets off my "extreme corner case" detector,

Hi Owen,

Yes, that's the idea. In any ROBUST engineering activity you have to
find where the boundary cases lie and beware of them lest you create a
Tacoma Narrows Bridge or a Boston Plywood Palace. Something as simple
as missing the threat from heavier than normal snow can lead to a
Dulles Jet Center collapse with an impact in the hundreds of millions
of dollars.

A process doesn't necessarily have to perform at the boundary cases,
but it's usually important that it fail gracefully. Until you know
where the boundary cases are, it's impossible to even assess how the
process performs as it approaches those cases, let alone verify
graceful failure.

When it works well, designing game scenarios as I described leads to
the identification of the corner cases an ARIN policy author should
watch out for in his draft. What one does about the corner cases is
often a matter of reasonable debate but drafting without identifying
or assessing the corner cases yields faulty policy more often than
not.



> This particular policy wouldn't deal with it until the applicant came for
> more addresses. It would also depend on what is meant by your
> term administratively distinct. For example, if it were spun off
> into a separate organization or other wise transferred to a different
> organization through a section 8 process, then, the remaining 7
> would likely still qualify as discrete networks.

Scenario: IT services runs a corporate LAN. Software services runs a
separate developer's network with an entirely different security
posture. The grocery home delivery product team runs a complex network
independent of IT, etc. These networks in the same building don't
touch and all deal with Internet vendors separately until someone gets
the bright idea to buy a smaller number of larger Internet lines and
share.


> In the case where they remain part of the original ORG, the
> alleged administrative distinction is not relevant to ARIN and
> they would still be a single org. Since they now share a common
> routing policy (everything through the one network) as far as the
> outside world is concerned, I would say they are no longer
> discrete networks in the meaning of the policy.

As would I. My concern is that it's fairly easy for a large contractor
not specifically focused on Internet services to fall in to the
pattern above. The best minds get sucked out of central IT by the
revenue-producing product teams resulting in a central IT incapable of
supporting the products' needs. So the networking activity fractures.
Eventually someone in central IT grows a brain but by then the
addressing is inaggregable with a substantial cost not to the company
itself but to the rest of the world.


> 2.      It really is a very bizarre scenario in that particular network
>        in which case it would occur so infrequently as to be irrelevant
>        in evaluating policy efficacy.

Such fractured networking is a very popular error. Sophistication
among such subnetworks' operators sufficient to interact with ARIN for
addresses is much less popular but as nines of reliability enter the
product managers' lexicon it's becoming more so.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov 15 21:25:11 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:25:11 +0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-07
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7a2PeZoERo2Fk-4df8EGVe=LaEsf5RfnTYsJM3rNTQrqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone..

I just heard a presentation of this Internet Draft
draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-07

This is another proposal for a special purpose transition block.
 Apparently the IANA has already reserved a block for this, 192.70.192.0/24

This is being discussed on the IETF IPv6 Operations mailing list
apparently.  I wanted to bring it to your attention.

This draft seems to be to be directly related to work in our community.

----Cathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111116/ee875a6d/attachment.htm>

From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Nov 15 22:07:08 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:07:08 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-07
In-Reply-To: <CAMvf=7a2PeZoERo2Fk-4df8EGVe=LaEsf5RfnTYsJM3rNTQrqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMvf=7a2PeZoERo2Fk-4df8EGVe=LaEsf5RfnTYsJM3rNTQrqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EC328DC.80709@umn.edu>

I'm confused or you are.

On 11/15/11 20:25 CST, CJ Aronson wrote:
> Hi everyone..
>
> I just heard a presentation of this Internet Draft
> draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-07

That is an interesting draft discussing a problem set, but I don't see 
where it proposes any solutions to the problem, especially nothing using 
the address range you describe below.

> This is another proposal for a special purpose transition block.
>   Apparently the IANA has already reserved a block for this,
> 192.70.192.0/24 <http://192.70.192.0/24>

That address range is defined as a range "to be used in the context of 
generating an IPv4 source address for mapped ICMPv6 packets being passed 
through a stateless IPv4/IPv6 translator," in 
draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-04

I've personally followed this draft and it is interesting, however I 
don't see how they are related other than IPv4 ICMP in a tangential way.

> This is being discussed on the IETF IPv6 Operations mailing list
> apparently.  I wanted to bring it to your attention.
>
> This draft seems to be to be directly related to work in our community.

?????? <perplexed>

> ----Cathy

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From cja at daydream.com  Wed Nov 16 00:08:59 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:08:59 +0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-07
In-Reply-To: <4EC328DC.80709@umn.edu>
References: <CAMvf=7a2PeZoERo2Fk-4df8EGVe=LaEsf5RfnTYsJM3rNTQrqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EC328DC.80709@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7Zv6+HhbHgdkVCBLx5UxMOSMzrLdc2rdMK84AKXHtUutw@mail.gmail.com>

Shoot I pasted the wrong draft name. This is the draft that references that
special purpose block
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-04

I am having a horrible problem with jet lag here.

Anyway this seems to me to be another special purpose block that perhaps
could use the /10 in the Weil proposal instead?

If folks don't feel that this is something that relates to ppml that's
fine.

Thanks
----Cathy

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> I'm confused or you are.
>
>
> On 11/15/11 20:25 CST, CJ Aronson wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone..
>>
>> I just heard a presentation of this Internet Draft
>> draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-**cores-07
>>
>
> That is an interesting draft discussing a problem set, but I don't see
> where it proposes any solutions to the problem, especially nothing using
> the address range you describe below.
>
>  This is another proposal for a special purpose transition block.
>>  Apparently the IANA has already reserved a block for this,
>> 192.70.192.0/24 <http://192.70.192.0/24>
>>
>
> That address range is defined as a range "to be used in the context of
> generating an IPv4 source address for mapped ICMPv6 packets being passed
> through a stateless IPv4/IPv6 translator," in draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-
> **04
>
> I've personally followed this draft and it is interesting, however I don't
> see how they are related other than IPv4 ICMP in a tangential way.
>
>
>  This is being discussed on the IETF IPv6 Operations mailing list
>> apparently.  I wanted to bring it to your attention.
>>
>> This draft seems to be to be directly related to work in our community.
>>
>
> ?????? <perplexed>
>
>  ----Cathy
>>
>
> --
> ==============================**=================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE      Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ==============================**=================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111116/43f09c5a/attachment.htm>

From cja at daydream.com  Wed Nov 16 00:17:16 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:17:16 +0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-07
In-Reply-To: <CAMvf=7Zv6+HhbHgdkVCBLx5UxMOSMzrLdc2rdMK84AKXHtUutw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMvf=7a2PeZoERo2Fk-4df8EGVe=LaEsf5RfnTYsJM3rNTQrqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EC328DC.80709@umn.edu>
	<CAMvf=7Zv6+HhbHgdkVCBLx5UxMOSMzrLdc2rdMK84AKXHtUutw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7bRGD_7Q1W0VeRKwB=KjfW+Bj+F6nRL2pQWu+UZjubb8w@mail.gmail.com>

To be complete the /10 I am referring to would be the one in 2011-5.  I was
in IETF mode when I said Draft Weil.  Sorry.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:08 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:

> Shoot I pasted the wrong draft name. This is the draft that references
> that special purpose block
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-04
>
> I am having a horrible problem with jet lag here.
>
> Anyway this seems to me to be another special purpose block that perhaps
> could use the /10 in the Weil proposal instead?
>
> If folks don't feel that this is something that relates to ppml that's
> fine.
>
> Thanks
> ----Cathy
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'm confused or you are.
>>
>>
>> On 11/15/11 20:25 CST, CJ Aronson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone..
>>>
>>> I just heard a presentation of this Internet Draft
>>> draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-**cores-07
>>>
>>
>> That is an interesting draft discussing a problem set, but I don't see
>> where it proposes any solutions to the problem, especially nothing using
>> the address range you describe below.
>>
>>  This is another proposal for a special purpose transition block.
>>>  Apparently the IANA has already reserved a block for this,
>>> 192.70.192.0/24 <http://192.70.192.0/24>
>>>
>>
>> That address range is defined as a range "to be used in the context of
>> generating an IPv4 source address for mapped ICMPv6 packets being passed
>> through a stateless IPv4/IPv6 translator," in draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-
>> **04
>>
>> I've personally followed this draft and it is interesting, however I
>> don't see how they are related other than IPv4 ICMP in a tangential way.
>>
>>
>>  This is being discussed on the IETF IPv6 Operations mailing list
>>> apparently.  I wanted to bring it to your attention.
>>>
>>> This draft seems to be to be directly related to work in our community.
>>>
>>
>> ?????? <perplexed>
>>
>>  ----Cathy
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ==============================**=================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE      Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ==============================**=================
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111116/e5279b90/attachment.htm>

From lambert at psc.edu  Wed Nov 16 11:15:43 2011
From: lambert at psc.edu (Michael Lambert)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:15:43 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers -
	RevisedAssessment
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C31@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<B0F9F114-8E1D-47C3-A7EC-4B91623B07CB@loudounwireless.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C31@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <B7C84F33-0694-4B0B-9CB5-4FB7FA739A49@psc.edu>

On 11 Nov 2011, at 18:33, Bill Darte wrote:

> Everyone else, for or against the DP...please provide your feedback and if for or against, any concrete input on ways to improve it are welcome.

The draft may not be perfect, but the staff and legal assessments were very helpful.  I support the draft policy as revised.

Michael

-----
Michael H. Lambert, GigaPoP Coordinator        Phone: +1 412 268-4960
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1 412 268-5832
300 S Craig St, Pittsburgh, PA  15213 USA      lambert at psc.edu






From hannigan at gmail.com  Wed Nov 16 13:30:43 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:30:43 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers -
	RevisedAssessment
In-Reply-To: <B7C84F33-0694-4B0B-9CB5-4FB7FA739A49@psc.edu>
References: <4E9F20FF.1070203@arin.net> <4EBACBB5.60600@arin.net>
	<B0F9F114-8E1D-47C3-A7EC-4B91623B07CB@loudounwireless.com>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915C31@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<B7C84F33-0694-4B0B-9CB5-4FB7FA739A49@psc.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Mok2kfRoLd9ZuGAuyUkq4fSKTqSAvBLcgnVBhHRFEoJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Michael Lambert <lambert at psc.edu> wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2011, at 18:33, Bill Darte wrote:
>
>> Everyone else, for or against the DP...please provide your feedback and if for or against, any concrete input on ways to improve it are welcome.
>
> The draft may not be perfect, but the staff and legal assessments were very helpful. ?I support the draft policy as revised.
>


I'm not sure how the legal assessment was helpful. It was a vague
statement related to improved position without a supporting thesis.
Can you articulate?

Best,

-M<


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Nov 18 00:53:03 2011
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:53:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201111180553.pAI5r3qI030547@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 37 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Nov 18 00:53:03 EST 2011
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 16.22% |    6 | 14.87% |    57959 | owen at delong.com
 16.22% |    6 | 12.69% |    49469 | bill at herrin.us
 16.22% |    6 |  9.74% |    37981 | hannigan at gmail.com
  2.70% |    1 | 21.89% |    85319 | jdub at loudounwireless.com
 10.81% |    4 |  7.39% |    28822 | farmer at umn.edu
  8.11% |    3 |  7.97% |    31065 | cja at daydream.com
  8.11% |    3 |  4.29% |    16727 | jcurran at arin.net
  2.70% |    1 |  8.96% |    34926 | billd at cait.wustl.edu
  5.41% |    2 |  2.84% |    11086 | matt at conundrum.com
  2.70% |    1 |  2.72% |    10620 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com
  2.70% |    1 |  1.91% |     7444 | narten at us.ibm.com
  2.70% |    1 |  1.71% |     6674 | joe at oregon.uoregon.edu
  2.70% |    1 |  1.67% |     6503 | mpetach at netflight.com
  2.70% |    1 |  1.34% |     5221 | lambert at psc.edu
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   37 |100.00% |   389816 | Total



From info at arin.net  Mon Nov 21 13:36:47 2011
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:47 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization
	Requirement
Message-ID: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>

ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy
Development Process.

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.

The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Mailing list subscription information can be found
at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

Proposal Originator: Aaron Hughes

Proposal Version: 1

Date: 21 November 2011

Proposal type: modify

Policy term: permanent

Policy statement:

NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)

Add:

3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose 
of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the 
tie down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered 
utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from 
the /36).

Rationale:

If you are executing to a long term plan, you should be able to continue 
to execute on your approved allocation and assignment plan regardless of 
the number of regions/groupings you originally planned for. We want to 
promote tie downs on nibbles and long term planning.

Timetable for implementation: Immediately



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Nov 21 14:20:42 2011
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:20:42 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
	Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
Message-ID: <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>

Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?

Scott

On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:37 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
>
> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy
> Development Process.
>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>
> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Mailing list subscription information can be found
> at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
>
> Proposal Originator: Aaron Hughes
>
> Proposal Version: 1
>
> Date: 21 November 2011
>
> Proposal type: modify
>
> Policy term: permanent
>
> Policy statement:
>
> NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)
>
> Add:
>
> 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the tie down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from the /36).
>
> Rationale:
>
> If you are executing to a long term plan, you should be able to continue to execute on your approved allocation and assignment plan regardless of the number of regions/groupings you originally planned for. We want to promote tie downs on nibbles and long term planning.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediately
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From bill at herrin.us  Mon Nov 21 14:24:05 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:24:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
	Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX_2tVPOjda8PKJFpcbt3GLd3zL7rL_Y+iT+4ZZXi3SWw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
> Proposal Originator: Aaron Hughes

> NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)
> 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of
> subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the tie
> down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered
> utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from the
> /36).

Hi Aaron,

I assume you mean topological aggregated customer entry points, where
you want "tie down" customer assignments so they share a common route
within your infrastructure. "Tie down" is not defined in the NRPM.

Would you create an example scenario under current policy where an ISP
has exhausted the IPv6 addresses for which it qualifies and can not
get more due to a reasonable use of tie downs?

Is there any other way to resolve the problem? For example, if
6.5.3(b) was replaced with permitting an additional allocation in
order to enlarge the ISPs holdings to what it could justify under
6.5.2.1(c), would that satisfy?


Thanks,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From aaronh at bind.com  Mon Nov 21 19:14:12 2011
From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:14:12 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
 Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
 <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>


On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?

Scott,

There is no limit in this proposal as it is meant to work for any size provider.

Keep in mind, this is for subsequent requests so it assumes they have already been approved for an initial allocation based on some assignment plan. ARIN staff is more than capable of sniffing out abusers vs those that are allocating to plan and have simply outgrown their initial allocation. There is no written limit proposed since there are folks who will tie down large amounts of space. If we were $very_large_provider and had, hypothetically, /32 tie downs in each location for (let's say) /48s for DSL/Cable customers, they would have already been approved for something like a /28 or /24, so it would not be unreasonable to request more without the % utilization IMHO.

On the other hand, if they were $small_provider, had 10 regions of 1000 customers (/48s) and tied down /36s, when they reached 15 regions, it would be perfectly reasonable to request an additional /32, but not a /28 or /24 without more justification than I am simply utilized to plan. (Clearly 1000/4096 is not considered utilized by current utilization definition in the NRPM and should be.)

Also keep in mind we are collectively advising people to make a 10 year plan and get over the IPv4 mindset. This means we should not have to plan for all regional/groupings of tie downs to get to 80% utilization at the same time.

BTW: I support this policy proposal.

Cheers,
Aaron

> 
> Scott
> 
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:37 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> > ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
> >
> > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
> > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy
> > Development Process.
> >
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
> > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
> > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
> > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
> > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
> >
> > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
> > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
> >
> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Mailing list subscription information can be found
> > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ## * ##
> >
> >
> > ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
> >
> > Proposal Originator: Aaron Hughes
> >
> > Proposal Version: 1
> >
> > Date: 21 November 2011
> >
> > Proposal type: modify
> >
> > Policy term: permanent
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)
> >
> > Add:
> >
> > 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the tie down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from the /36).
> >
> > Rationale:
> >
> > If you are executing to a long term plan, you should be able to continue to execute on your approved allocation and assignment plan regardless of the number of regions/groupings you originally planned for. We want to promote tie downs on nibbles and long term planning.
> >
> > Timetable for implementation: Immediately
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-- 

Aaron Hughes 
aaronh at bind.com
+1-831-824-4161
Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8
http://www.bind.com/


From aaronh at bind.com  Mon Nov 21 19:25:55 2011
From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:25:55 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
 Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX_2tVPOjda8PKJFpcbt3GLd3zL7rL_Y+iT+4ZZXi3SWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX_2tVPOjda8PKJFpcbt3GLd3zL7rL_Y+iT+4ZZXi3SWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111122002555.GB30007@trace.bind.com>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:24:05PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
> > Proposal Originator: Aaron Hughes
> 
> > NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)
> > 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of
> > subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the tie
> > down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered
> > utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from the
> > /36).
> 
> Hi Aaron,
> 
> I assume you mean topological aggregated customer entry points, where
> you want "tie down" customer assignments so they share a common route
> within your infrastructure. "Tie down" is not defined in the NRPM.

It would be good to define "Tie down" in the NRPM, and yes, I mean topological aggregated customer entry points, however, others may define this in more generic terms of groupings.

> Would you create an example scenario under current policy where an ISP
> has exhausted the IPv6 addresses for which it qualifies and can not
> get more due to a reasonable use of tie downs?

I did just send a couple in another reply to Scotts' e-mail, however, simply scenario would be:

- 10 regions of 1000 customers growing at 100 customers per year.
- Requested /32 for /36 tie downs per region
- Reserved 1 /36 for internal infrastructure
- Grew over time to 15 regions
- 1000+ /48s in each do not meet utilization of /36s
- How do I deploy my 16th+ region without resizing to non-nibbles?

> Is there any other way to resolve the problem? For example, if
> 6.5.3(b) was replaced with permitting an additional allocation in
> order to enlarge the ISPs holdings to what it could justify under
> 6.5.2.1(c), would that satisfy?

Possibly, however, "2.16. Utilized (IPv6)" seems to me would be very clear to anyone reading it and the obvious place to define utilization. :)

> Thanks,

Thank you sir.

Cheers,
Aaron

> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> --
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-- 

Aaron Hughes 
aaronh at bind.com
+1-831-824-4161
Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8
http://www.bind.com/


From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Nov 21 19:50:09 2011
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:50:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
	Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net> <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>
	<20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz4dJr_O_KtbWhoTbD0NDwGLEeDy8TweA8hm+gZvF410Zw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Aaron Hughes <aaronh at bind.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?
>
> Scott,
>
> There is no limit in this proposal as it is meant to work for any size provider.
>
> Keep in mind, this is for subsequent requests so it assumes they have already been approved for an initial allocation based on some assignment plan. ARIN staff is more than capable of sniffing out abusers vs those that are allocating to plan and have simply outgrown their initial allocation. There is no written limit proposed since there are folks who will tie down large amounts of space. If we were $very_large_provider and had, hypothetically, /32 tie downs in each location for (let's say) /48s for DSL/Cable customers, they would have already been approved for something like a /28 or /24, so it would not be unreasonable to request more without the % utilization IMHO.
>
> On the other hand, if they were $small_provider, had 10 regions of 1000 customers (/48s) and tied down /36s, when they reached 15 regions, it would be perfectly reasonable to request an additional /32, but not a /28 or /24 without more justification than I am simply utilized to plan. (Clearly 1000/4096 is not considered utilized by current utilization definition in the NRPM and should be.)
>
> Also keep in mind we are collectively advising people to make a 10 year plan and get over the IPv4 mindset. This means we should not have to plan for all regional/groupings of tie downs to get to 80% utilization at the same time.

I get that, and agree with the intent.  I'm only worried that someone
might get approved for an initial allocation (say /32), do a /32
tiedown, allocate a /48 from it, request a subsequent allocation,
rinse, repeat.  If we can somehow make sure that the policy only
allows for "reasonable" tie-downs, that would address my concern.

-Scott


From aaronh at bind.com  Mon Nov 21 20:11:16 2011
From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:11:16 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
 Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz4dJr_O_KtbWhoTbD0NDwGLEeDy8TweA8hm+gZvF410Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net> <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>
	<20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>
	<CAGkMwz4dJr_O_KtbWhoTbD0NDwGLEeDy8TweA8hm+gZvF410Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111122011116.GB61896@trace.bind.com>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 07:50:09PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Aaron Hughes <aaronh at bind.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> >> Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > There is no limit in this proposal as it is meant to work for any size provider.
> >
> > Keep in mind, this is for subsequent requests so it assumes they have already been approved for an initial allocation based on some assignment plan. ARIN staff is more than capable of sniffing out abusers vs those that are allocating to plan and have simply outgrown their initial allocation. There is no written limit proposed since there are folks who will tie down large amounts of space. If we were $very_large_provider and had, hypothetically, /32 tie downs in each location for (let's say) /48s for DSL/Cable customers, they would have already been approved for something like a /28 or /24, so it would not be unreasonable to request more without the % utilization IMHO.
> >
> > On the other hand, if they were $small_provider, had 10 regions of 1000 customers (/48s) and tied down /36s, when they reached 15 regions, it would be perfectly reasonable to request an additional /32, but not a /28 or /24 without more justification than I am simply utilized to plan. (Clearly 1000/4096 is not considered utilized by current utilization definition in the NRPM and should be.)
> >
> > Also keep in mind we are collectively advising people to make a 10 year plan and get over the IPv4 mindset. This means we should not have to plan for all regional/groupings of tie downs to get to 80% utilization at the same time.
> 
> I get that, and agree with the intent.  I'm only worried that someone
> might get approved for an initial allocation (say /32), do a /32
> tiedown, allocate a /48 from it, request a subsequent allocation,
> rinse, repeat.  If we can somehow make sure that the policy only
> allows for "reasonable" tie-downs, that would address my concern.

I really wish we could write policy to help people rather than worrying about abusers of policy. This is IPv6. Anyone can write a plan and get some. I am sure ARIN staff can figure out a way to manage abuse. 

In the past, words such as "reasonable" have been removed from policy proposal text by legal and staff review due to the action being ambiguous. I have written this is simple, plain English with the intent to help out those who are living by our advice. 

I do not know what the proper channels are for ARIN to protect both ARIN and the community from abuse. Perhaps the AC and ARIN staff can discuss and remove the burden from the community to address abuse.

Thanks for the support of the intent.

Cheers,
Aaron


> 
> -Scott

-- 

Aaron Hughes 
aaronh at bind.com
+1-831-824-4161
Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8
http://www.bind.com/


From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Mon Nov 21 20:36:50 2011
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:36:50 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
 Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <20111122011116.GB61896@trace.bind.com>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net> <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>
	<20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>
	<CAGkMwz4dJr_O_KtbWhoTbD0NDwGLEeDy8TweA8hm+gZvF410Zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111122011116.GB61896@trace.bind.com>
Message-ID: <4ECAFCB2.4090806@burnttofu.net>

On 11/21/11 17:11, Aaron Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 07:50:09PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Aaron Hughes<aaronh at bind.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>> Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> There is no limit in this proposal as it is meant to work for any
>>> size provider.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind, this is for subsequent requests so it assumes they
>>> have already been approved for an initial allocation based on
>>> some assignment plan. ARIN staff is more than capable of sniffing
>>> out abusers vs those that are allocating to plan and have simply
>>> outgrown their initial allocation. There is no written limit
>>> proposed since there are folks who will tie down large amounts of
>>> space. If we were $very_large_provider and had, hypothetically,
>>> /32 tie downs in each location for (let's say) /48s for DSL/Cable
>>> customers, they would have already been approved for something
>>> like a /28 or /24, so it would not be unreasonable to request
>>> more without the % utilization IMHO.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if they were $small_provider, had 10 regions
>>> of 1000 customers (/48s) and tied down /36s, when they reached 15
>>> regions, it would be perfectly reasonable to request an
>>> additional /32, but not a /28 or /24 without more justification
>>> than I am simply utilized to plan. (Clearly 1000/4096 is not
>>> considered utilized by current utilization definition in the NRPM
>>> and should be.)
>>>
>>> Also keep in mind we are collectively advising people to make a
>>> 10 year plan and get over the IPv4 mindset. This means we should
>>> not have to plan for all regional/groupings of tie downs to get
>>> to 80% utilization at the same time.
>>
>> I get that, and agree with the intent.  I'm only worried that
>> someone might get approved for an initial allocation (say /32), do
>> a /32 tiedown, allocate a /48 from it, request a subsequent
>> allocation, rinse, repeat.  If we can somehow make sure that the
>> policy only allows for "reasonable" tie-downs, that would address
>> my concern.
>
> I really wish we could write policy to help people rather than
> worrying about abusers of policy. This is IPv6. Anyone can write a
> plan and get some. I am sure ARIN staff can figure out a way to
> manage abuse.
>
> In the past, words such as "reasonable" have been removed from policy
> proposal text by legal and staff review due to the action being
> ambiguous. I have written this is simple, plain English with the
> intent to help out those who are living by our advice.
>
> I do not know what the proper channels are for ARIN to protect both
> ARIN and the community from abuse. Perhaps the AC and ARIN staff can
> discuss and remove the burden from the community to address abuse.
>
> Thanks for the support of the intent.

If there is a reasonable way to get a reasonableness standard 
incorporated into the policy, I would support that.  But I also support 
the proposal as-is.  I think it gives enough guidance to staff to make 
the right decision (although I appreciate any guidance that staff can 
give the policy community on giving the staff guidance :-) ).

michael


From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov 21 20:54:04 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:54:04 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
	Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net> <5183496461849411209@unknownmsgid>
	<20111122001411.GA30007@trace.bind.com>
Message-ID: <42689070-6F95-412E-9BE6-DE70A00C0BB4@delong.com>


On Nov 21, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote:

> 
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?
> 
> Scott,
> 
> There is no limit in this proposal as it is meant to work for any size provider.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is for subsequent requests so it assumes they have already been approved for an initial allocation based on some assignment plan. ARIN staff is more than capable of sniffing out abusers vs those that are allocating to plan and have simply outgrown their initial allocation. There is no written limit proposed since there are folks who will tie down large amounts of space. If we were $very_large_provider and had, hypothetically, /32 tie downs in each location for (let's say) /48s for DSL/Cable customers, they would have already been approved for something like a /28 or /24, so it would not be unreasonable to request more without the % utilization IMHO.
> 
> On the other hand, if they were $small_provider, had 10 regions of 1000 customers (/48s) and tied down /36s, when they reached 15 regions, it would be perfectly reasonable to request an additional /32, but not a /28 or /24 without more justification than I am simply utilized to plan. (Clearly 1000/4096 is not considered utilized by current utilization definition in the NRPM and should be.)
> 
> Also keep in mind we are collectively advising people to make a 10 year plan and get over the IPv4 mindset. This means we should not have to plan for all regional/groupings of tie downs to get to 80% utilization at the same time.
> 

The current policy addresses that expectation by allowing an additional allocation at the point where one site reaches 90% utilization.

It does, however, as you have pointed out in this proposal, fail to address the case where a provider has deployed more additional sites than they received headroom to support. Since the current policy does provide for organizations that started deploying with less than their current entitlement under old policies to receive entire new allocations based on the current policy without requiring return of their original allocation, I think this issue is of concern, but, not necessarily urgent.

I support the idea of this policy proposal. I think the language can be improved to better express the intent, but, I'm short on time to do so at the moment.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov 21 20:56:03 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:56:03 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
	Utilization Requirement
In-Reply-To: <20111122002555.GB30007@trace.bind.com>
References: <4ECA9A3F.2040807@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX_2tVPOjda8PKJFpcbt3GLd3zL7rL_Y+iT+4ZZXi3SWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111122002555.GB30007@trace.bind.com>
Message-ID: <F2498449-5782-42F7-9091-CA2B2DB390F4@delong.com>


On Nov 21, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:24:05PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
>>> Proposal Originator: Aaron Hughes
>> 
>>> NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6)
>>> 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of
>>> subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the tie
>>> down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered
>>> utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from the
>>> /36).
>> 
>> Hi Aaron,
>> 
>> I assume you mean topological aggregated customer entry points, where
>> you want "tie down" customer assignments so they share a common route
>> within your infrastructure. "Tie down" is not defined in the NRPM.
> 
> It would be good to define "Tie down" in the NRPM, and yes, I mean topological aggregated customer entry points, however, others may define this in more generic terms of groupings.
> 
Suggest adding a section 2 definition of "Tie down" as "an aggregate allocation by an LIR/ISP to a serving site".
(The term serving site was defined as part of 2011-3 IIRC).

The other option would be to modify the proposal to refer to blocks allocated to serving sites instead of using
the new term "tie down".

Owen



From info at arin.net  Tue Nov 22 13:13:42 2011
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:13:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2011
Message-ID: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net>

In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN 
Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 16 November 2011 and made 
decisions about several draft policies and proposals.

The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for
adoption:

   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
   ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers
   ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 
allocation mechanisms by the IANA
   ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer

The AC provided a statement about 2011-1:
#####
On Wednesday, November 16th 2011 the ARIN Advisory Council voted to send 
2011-1 to the Board of Trustees for review and implementation.  The vote 
to do so was not unanimous and in light of spirited community debate 
during the last call process it was thought best to amplify its 
statement to the Community regarding why this action was taken.  This 
decision hinged on the following points:

* Broad support for a policy allowing those with addresses to transfer 
them inter-regionally,

* Incremental changes to the policy over two Public Policy Meetings,

* Some changes to the policy after the last Public Policy Meeting to 
incorporate feedback received there,

* Advice from Counsel that ARIN is in a far better position with such a 
policy in place than without,

* Statement from the CEO that there are technical details to support 
this policy that will take the better part of a year to implement.

2011-1 may not represent the final word in specified transfer policy. We 
encourage the community to review the policy and we welcome subsequent 
policy proposals to modify the NRPM to reflect the community's more 
specific desires and operational experience.

For complete objectivity, the AC members voting in the minority on this 
Draft Policy should have an opportunity to express their views.

Dissenting Viewpoint of the of AC:
The members of the AC that opposed the motion did so for several 
reasons. Firstly, there was no vote on any version of policy text for 
2011-1 at the last PPM in Philadelphia. Secondly, there were strong 
objections in the community to the text that was presented at last call 
with approximately 50% of those that commented on the matter on PPML in 
opposition. Finally, some AC members felt that the changes made to the 
policy text as it entered last call were too drastic to not go before 
the community at another PPM. Those dissenting felt that the matter 
should remain on the docket for further work.
#####

The following draft policy remains on the AC's docket (a motion to send
to last call was unsuccessful):

   ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

The AC abandoned the following proposal:

   ARIN-prop-158 Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

A statement from the AC will be forthcoming regarding the abandonment of 
this proposal.

The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort
and contributions to these and all other policy considerations.

The AC abandoned proposal 158. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision 
may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this proposal would be 
the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be five 
business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For 
more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP 
Petitions at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html

Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)










From mike at nationwideinc.com  Tue Nov 22 15:13:34 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:13:34 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2011
In-Reply-To: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net>
References: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net>
Message-ID: <8EA69B2525404A8BAA9BE309E3320F2A@MPC>

Thanks for the updates and the deliberations.
Can you provide or clarify the statement from the CEO that there are 
technical details to support this policy that will take the better part of a 
year to implement?

I'm sorry if I missed it, but does this imply that there will be a year 
between adoption and the first Inter-RIR transfer?

Regards,

Mike Burns







-----Original Message----- 
From: ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:13 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2011

In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN
Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 16 November 2011 and made
decisions about several draft policies and proposals.

The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for
adoption:

   ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
   ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers
   ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4
allocation mechanisms by the IANA
   ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer

The AC provided a statement about 2011-1:
#####
On Wednesday, November 16th 2011 the ARIN Advisory Council voted to send
2011-1 to the Board of Trustees for review and implementation.  The vote
to do so was not unanimous and in light of spirited community debate
during the last call process it was thought best to amplify its
statement to the Community regarding why this action was taken.  This
decision hinged on the following points:

* Broad support for a policy allowing those with addresses to transfer
them inter-regionally,

* Incremental changes to the policy over two Public Policy Meetings,

* Some changes to the policy after the last Public Policy Meeting to
incorporate feedback received there,

* Advice from Counsel that ARIN is in a far better position with such a
policy in place than without,

* Statement from the CEO that there are technical details to support
this policy that will take the better part of a year to implement.

2011-1 may not represent the final word in specified transfer policy. We
encourage the community to review the policy and we welcome subsequent
policy proposals to modify the NRPM to reflect the community's more
specific desires and operational experience.

For complete objectivity, the AC members voting in the minority on this
Draft Policy should have an opportunity to express their views.

Dissenting Viewpoint of the of AC:
The members of the AC that opposed the motion did so for several
reasons. Firstly, there was no vote on any version of policy text for
2011-1 at the last PPM in Philadelphia. Secondly, there were strong
objections in the community to the text that was presented at last call
with approximately 50% of those that commented on the matter on PPML in
opposition. Finally, some AC members felt that the changes made to the
policy text as it entered last call were too drastic to not go before
the community at another PPM. Those dissenting felt that the matter
should remain on the docket for further work.
#####

The following draft policy remains on the AC's docket (a motion to send
to last call was unsuccessful):

   ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

The AC abandoned the following proposal:

   ARIN-prop-158 Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

A statement from the AC will be forthcoming regarding the abandonment of
this proposal.

The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort
and contributions to these and all other policy considerations.

The AC abandoned proposal 158. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision
may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this proposal would be
the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be five
business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For
more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
Petitions at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html

Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)








_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. 



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 22 16:15:17 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:15:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2011
In-Reply-To: <8EA69B2525404A8BAA9BE309E3320F2A@MPC>
References: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net> <8EA69B2525404A8BAA9BE309E3320F2A@MPC>
Message-ID: <22464C26-4A9D-4389-9B4B-792A349F95BA@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 22, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Thanks for the updates and the deliberations.
> Can you provide or clarify the statement from the CEO that there are technical details to support this policy that will take the better part of a year to implement?
> 
> I'm sorry if I missed it, but does this imply that there will be a year between adoption and the first Inter-RIR transfer?


Mike -

Per the most recent staff assessmentment of 2011-1 - 
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-November/023670.html>

  "3.  Resource Impact

   This policy would have major  resource impact from an implementation 
   aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 9-12 
   months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following 
   would be needed in order to implement:

   -Careful coordination between the RIRs on DNS issues and updates
   -Updated guidelines
   -Staff training"

In short, there are significant issues in inter-RIR coordination which
makes the implementation very challenging.  For example, the reverse DNS
services for a transferred block may still be served by the original RIR
even after transfer.  As many of us have automated systems for managing
registry changes, it is not clear whether cross-system automation will 
be practical for InterRIR transfers, and these types of issues need to 
be discussed between RIRs before the planning for the necessary changes
can be accomplished or a decision is made to manually synchronize any
changes for some period of time.

FYI,
/John




From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 22 16:55:22 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:55:22 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2011
In-Reply-To: <7B6F81AE8A1245BBA3229D6774C61A85@MPC>
References: <4ECBE656.5060300@arin.net><8EA69B2525404A8BAA9BE309E3320F2A@MPC>
	<22464C26-4A9D-4389-9B4B-792A349F95BA@corp.arin.net>
	<7B6F81AE8A1245BBA3229D6774C61A85@MPC>
Message-ID: <9B5E8FCE-BF38-48F1-8994-8FE48F43605A@arin.net>

On Nov 22, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> I know people in Asia are anxious to get started, and 9-12 months is a long time.
> Have you consulted with your counterpart in APNIC when coming to your estimate?
> 
> If a decision is made to manually synchronize any changes for some period of time, do you have any idea on how much that might shorten the timeframe?
> 
> Is there anything a potential buyer, seller, or facilitator could do to expedite the process?
> 
> Thanks for anything you can share.

Mike - 

There are times when ARIN will start development of a draft policy before 
formal adoption if it is making obvious progress, and given the interest
in Inter-RIR transfers and recommendation of the ARIN AC, I believe that
starting development on 2011-1 implementation is now prudent. We have not
taken on any implementation planning prior to this point as we already 
quite a full plate.

I will be recommending to the Board that we proceed with implementation 
planning, even in advance of their formal policy adoption.  The Board 
may adopt 2011-1 (and direct ARIN to begin implementation) or decide 
that additional policy work is needed but still direct ARIN to begin 
implementation.  Due to the strong spirit of community for policy in 
this area, and given the amount of work ARIN needs to do, it is still 
reasonable that start the implementation planning work asap.  Clearly, 
processing inter-RIR transfers requests can't happen the Board has 
adopted the final policy in any case.

We will need a month or two to see if a interim manual implementation 
makes sense and will report back when we have some better insight into
the challenges involved.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com  Tue Nov 22 17:37:02 2011
From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:37:02 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
	transfers
Message-ID: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>

Hello PPML,

Some changes are being considered in the text of prop-151, and I would
like to solicit some feedback. The modifications are summarized below
along with the resulting text. Given the conversations surrounding 2011-1,
it seems like a good time to continue the discussion with this text.

Thanks,
Dan Alexander


Changes to the original text:

- Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.

- Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".

- Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
possibility of inter-RIR transfers.

- Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
conditions. 


Resulting text:


Replace Section 8.3 with

8.3 ARIN will process and record IPv4 address transfer requests.

Conditions on source of the transfer:

* The source entity must be the current rights holder of the
IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
the status of those resources.

* The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.

* The source entity must not have received an allocation from
ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.

* The minimum transfer size is a /24


Conditions on recipient of the transfer:

* The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.

* The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.

* The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
space held, including all transferred resources.

* If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
which they can justify under current ARIN policies.

* The minimum transfer size is a /24


and add to the NRPM Section 12:

10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance
for addresses transferred under 8.3.






From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 22 19:53:59 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:53:59 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
	transfers
In-Reply-To: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>

I still oppose the policy. This policy is still a speculators dream and will have
negative impacts on the proper and reasonable management of IPv4 address
space by removing the needs-basis for any amount of transfers up to an aggregate
/12 (more than 1/4096th of total IPv4 unicast space).

Worse, this would actually prevent inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN region as it
is currently worded below.

Owen

On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> Hello PPML,
> 
> Some changes are being considered in the text of prop-151, and I would
> like to solicit some feedback. The modifications are summarized below
> along with the resulting text. Given the conversations surrounding 2011-1,
> it seems like a good time to continue the discussion with this text.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan Alexander
> 
> 
> Changes to the original text:
> 
> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.
> 
> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".
> 
> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
> possibility of inter-RIR transfers.
> 
> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
> conditions. 
> 
> 
> Resulting text:
> 
> 
> Replace Section 8.3 with
> 
> 8.3 ARIN will process and record IPv4 address transfer requests.
> 
> Conditions on source of the transfer:
> 
> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the
> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
> the status of those resources.
> 
> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.
> 
> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from
> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.
> 
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
> 
> 
> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
> 
> * The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
> 
> * The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
> 
> * The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
> to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
> IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
> to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
> space held, including all transferred resources.
> 
> * If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
> of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
> demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
> which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> 
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
> 
> 
> and add to the NRPM Section 12:
> 
> 10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance
> for addresses transferred under 8.3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From tvest at eyeconomics.com  Tue Nov 22 20:37:10 2011
From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:37:10 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
	transfers
In-Reply-To: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <46F9A3BE-73D4-4E71-9F4D-4571C9BA5C23@eyeconomics.com>

Hi Dan, 

I have a more general question about the conceivable* effects of transfers on the relevance of conditions like the ones spelled out in 8.3.
Is it the intent of the authors that conditions like these will remain in force in perpetuity -- i.e., that they will be "transitive," or continue to be binding in any/all subsequent transfer transactions on any/all parties involved in the transfer of the same resources, for as long as the relevant ARIN policies remain in force?

If so, are ARIN staff and counsel confident that the open-ended nature of such terms will not run afoul of various legal problems associated with "perpetuities"?

*IANAL, so maybe this concern is misplaced... in any case, it would be reassuring to hear that actual lawyer(s) regard this problem as "inconceivable" (or better still, why they think that it's a non-problem).

Thanks, 

TV 

On Nov 22, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> Hello PPML,
> 
> Some changes are being considered in the text of prop-151, and I would
> like to solicit some feedback. The modifications are summarized below
> along with the resulting text. Given the conversations surrounding 2011-1,
> it seems like a good time to continue the discussion with this text.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan Alexander
> 
> 
> Changes to the original text:
> 
> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.
> 
> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".
> 
> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
> possibility of inter-RIR transfers.
> 
> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
> conditions. 
> 
> 
> Resulting text:
> 
> 
> Replace Section 8.3 with
> 
> 8.3 ARIN will process and record IPv4 address transfer requests.
> 
> Conditions on source of the transfer:
> 
> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the
> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
> the status of those resources.
> 
> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.
> 
> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from
> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.
> 
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
> 
> 
> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
> 
> * The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
> 
> * The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
> 
> * The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
> to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
> IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
> to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
> space held, including all transferred resources.
> 
> * If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
> of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
> demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
> which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> 
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
> 
> 
> and add to the NRPM Section 12:
> 
> 10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance
> for addresses transferred under 8.3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111122/90e622a3/attachment.p7s>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 22 21:26:35 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:26:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
 transfers
In-Reply-To: <46F9A3BE-73D4-4E71-9F4D-4571C9BA5C23@eyeconomics.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<46F9A3BE-73D4-4E71-9F4D-4571C9BA5C23@eyeconomics.com>
Message-ID: <FA91DC40-668A-4813-9E98-8ED098897730@arin.net>

On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Tom Vest wrote:

> Hi Dan, 
> 
> I have a more general question about the conceivable* effects of transfers on the relevance of conditions like the ones spelled out in 8.3.
> Is it the intent of the authors that conditions like these will remain in force in perpetuity -- i.e., that they will be "transitive," or continue to be binding in any/all subsequent transfer transactions on any/all parties involved in the transfer of the same resources, for as long as the relevant ARIN policies remain in force?
> 
> If so, are ARIN staff and counsel confident that the open-ended nature of such terms will not run afoul of various legal problems associated with "perpetuities"?
> 
> *IANAL, so maybe this concern is misplaced... in any case, it would be reassuring to hear that actual lawyer(s) regard this problem as "inconceivable" (or better still, why they think that it's a non-problem).

Tom - 
 
  We have not had policy language proposed that would create terms 
  and conditions that would survive in perpetuity, i.e. whereby 
  future requests will be processed other than according to the 
  policies in effect at that time.  If policy language is proposed 
  that creates a perpetual condition on the resources themselves, 
  then we will have a legal review performed on that language at 
  that time as part of the normal staff assessment process.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

  

From tvest at eyeconomics.com  Tue Nov 22 22:42:44 2011
From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:42:44 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
	transfers
In-Reply-To: <FA91DC40-668A-4813-9E98-8ED098897730@arin.net>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<46F9A3BE-73D4-4E71-9F4D-4571C9BA5C23@eyeconomics.com>
	<FA91DC40-668A-4813-9E98-8ED098897730@arin.net>
Message-ID: <19F8FA0A-0EDB-4084-B683-E082B7AEB2D0@eyeconomics.com>


On Nov 22, 2011, at 9:26 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dan, 
>> 
>> I have a more general question about the conceivable* effects of transfers on the relevance of conditions like the ones spelled out in 8.3.
>> Is it the intent of the authors that conditions like these will remain in force in perpetuity -- i.e., that they will be "transitive," or continue to be binding in any/all subsequent transfer transactions on any/all parties involved in the transfer of the same resources, for as long as the relevant ARIN policies remain in force?
>> 
>> If so, are ARIN staff and counsel confident that the open-ended nature of such terms will not run afoul of various legal problems associated with "perpetuities"?
>> 
>> *IANAL, so maybe this concern is misplaced... in any case, it would be reassuring to hear that actual lawyer(s) regard this problem as "inconceivable" (or better still, why they think that it's a non-problem).
> 
> Tom - 
> 
>  We have not had policy language proposed that would create terms 
>  and conditions that would survive in perpetuity, i.e. whereby 
>  future requests will be processed other than according to the 
>  policies in effect at that time.  If policy language is proposed 
>  that creates a perpetual condition on the resources themselves, 
>  then we will have a legal review performed on that language at 
>  that time as part of the normal staff assessment process.
> 
> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN

Hi John, 

Thanks for the reply.
If I understand correctly, that means that the continuing applicability of ARIN policy (or any RIR/needs et al. policy more generally) with respect to specific resources will be determined solely by the applicable terms, if any, of any pre-existing contractual arrangement (e.g., RSA, LRSA, PI holder, etc.) between ARIN (or other-RIR) and all subsequent re/transfer recipients... ?

If that's not too far off base, are we confident that any/all current transferor-side requirements and/or restrictions could not in themselves, be construed as "perpetuities"?

Thanks again, 

TV

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111122/c215c3f9/attachment.p7s>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 22 23:28:07 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:28:07 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
 transfers
In-Reply-To: <19F8FA0A-0EDB-4084-B683-E082B7AEB2D0@eyeconomics.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<46F9A3BE-73D4-4E71-9F4D-4571C9BA5C23@eyeconomics.com>
	<FA91DC40-668A-4813-9E98-8ED098897730@arin.net>
	<19F8FA0A-0EDB-4084-B683-E082B7AEB2D0@eyeconomics.com>
Message-ID: <12CCACD2-3945-4183-A7F5-E0BEDADC5B56@arin.net>

On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> If I understand correctly, that means that the continuing applicability of ARIN policy (or any RIR/needs et al. policy more generally) with respect to specific resources will be determined solely by the applicable terms, if any, of any pre-existing contractual arrangement (e.g., RSA, LRSA, PI holder, etc.) between ARIN (or other-RIR) and all subsequent re/transfer recipients... ?
> 
> If that's not too far off base, are we confident that any/all current transferor-side requirements and/or restrictions could not in themselves, be construed as "perpetuities"?

Impossible to know; for example, parties may easily assert that terms and 
conditions originating with the IETF, the IANA Functions contract, or ICANN 
are applicable.  If there is particular term or condition that you believe 
is problematic, please let me know and I will arrange for its legal review.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Nov 23 01:36:35 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:36:35 +0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4
	transfers
In-Reply-To: <2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjD+7u7Ee6fS8FtCcEj4fexCcs2z8bvHDhNTBPc5n_9jQ@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings from AfriNIC-15,

I agree with Owen and oppose this policy as amended.

Rgds,

McTim

On Nov 23, 2011 3:55 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> I still oppose the policy. This policy is still a speculators dream and
> will have
> negative impacts on the proper and reasonable management of IPv4 address
> space by removing the needs-basis for any amount of transfers up to an
> aggregate
> /12 (more than 1/4096th of total IPv4 unicast space).
>
> Worse, this would actually prevent inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN
> region as it
> is currently worded below.
>
> Owen
>
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
>
> > Hello PPML,
> >
> > Some changes are being considered in the text of prop-151, and I would
> > like to solicit some feedback. The modifications are summarized below
> > along with the resulting text. Given the conversations surrounding
> 2011-1,
> > it seems like a good time to continue the discussion with this text.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dan Alexander
> >
> >
> > Changes to the original text:
> >
> > - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.
> >
> > - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".
> >
> > - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
> > possibility of inter-RIR transfers.
> >
> > - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
> > conditions.
> >
> >
> > Resulting text:
> >
> >
> > Replace Section 8.3 with
> >
> > 8.3 ARIN will process and record IPv4 address transfer requests.
> >
> > Conditions on source of the transfer:
> >
> > * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the
> > IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
> > the status of those resources.
> >
> > * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
> > address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
> > months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
> > IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.
> >
> > * The source entity must not have received an allocation from
> > ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.
> >
> > * The minimum transfer size is a /24
> >
> >
> > Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
> >
> > * The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
> >
> > * The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
> >
> > * The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
> > to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
> > IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
> > to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
> > space held, including all transferred resources.
> >
> > * If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
> > of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
> > demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
> > which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> >
> > * The minimum transfer size is a /24
> >
> >
> > and add to the NRPM Section 12:
> >
> > 10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance
> > for addresses transferred under 8.3.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111123/71c47815/attachment.htm>

From lsawyer at gci.com  Wed Nov 23 01:41:48 2011
From: lsawyer at gci.com (Leif Sawyer)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:41:48 -0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
	IPv4	transfers
Message-ID: <vf6pn3nm4au8dvnjya9xid66.1322030483211@email.android.com>

I oppose this policy.

From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Nov 23 10:10:02 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:10:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
	IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <25117D36BB9E41CC9006ED64298E2212@MPC>

Hi Owen,

First, thanks to Daniel for suggesting changes to Prop-151.

Clearly there is a consensus for allowing out of region transfers, that much
is clear.

But the devil is in the details, and I think that post-Philadelphia
discussion on this list served to point out potential pitfalls of 2011-1,
one of which was the danger of a raid on the free pool driven by pecuniary
interests.

Because once Inter-RIR transfers are allowed, a real demand for transferred
addresses will exist for the first time, MS/Nortel notwithstanding.

Prop-151 seeks to recognize the bald facts of human greed and deal with them
proactively to protect the free pool in two ways.

First, it prevents the selling of addresses from anybody who has received an
allocation from the free pool in the prior 12 months. This would serve as a
check against those who would seek to receive allocations of free addresses
with the intent of selling them in the transfer market.

Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen
helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like this
in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential profits
are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the high risk
of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by oversized returns.

And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that people will
see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly.  That means
in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause people to use
this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN justification
policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on the size of
allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used only internally)
is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be wrung out of the
pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool of legacy space.
Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more
efficiently than free ones.

And speaking of legacy space, this proposal would recognize what ARIN
lawyers are trying to tell us, namely that ARIN's legal position insofar as
restricting legacy space transfers is weak. ARIN can certainly refuse to
book these transfers, but it is by no means certain, legally, that ARIN has
any right to block them.  I believe ARIN counsel recognizes the difficulty
and expense involved in trying to either prevent transfers of legacy space
or revoking/reclaiming it.

By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial and
un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive
transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.

We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, and
global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring Whois
accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law,
equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist
duties as stewards of the free pool.

I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to answer
the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS
justified the transfer to ARIN?"
Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs.  My
fear is that legally, the deal would be done.  Whois would be ignored or
replaced by a private registry. Addresses revoked and reissued would subject
ARIN to lawsuits. A breakdown in Whois could lead to ITU becoming more
invasive.  If we stand in defiance of a free, open, and transparent market
we will be creating a black market.

I support the policy.

Regards,
Mike






-----Original Message----- 
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:53 PM
To: Alexander, Daniel
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
IPv4transfers

I still oppose the policy. This policy is still a speculators dream and will
have
negative impacts on the proper and reasonable management of IPv4 address
space by removing the needs-basis for any amount of transfers up to an
aggregate
/12 (more than 1/4096th of total IPv4 unicast space).

Worse, this would actually prevent inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN
region as it
is currently worded below.

Owen

On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> Hello PPML,
>
> Some changes are being considered in the text of prop-151, and I would
> like to solicit some feedback. The modifications are summarized below
> along with the resulting text. Given the conversations surrounding 2011-1,
> it seems like a good time to continue the discussion with this text.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Alexander
>
>
> Changes to the original text:
>
> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.
>
> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".
>
> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
> possibility of inter-RIR transfers.
>
> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
> conditions.
>
>
> Resulting text:
>
>
> Replace Section 8.3 with
>
> 8.3 ARIN will process and record IPv4 address transfer requests.
>
> Conditions on source of the transfer:
>
> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the
> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
> the status of those resources.
>
> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.
>
> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from
> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.
>
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>
>
> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>
> * The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
>
> * The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
>
> * The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
> to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
> IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
> to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
> space held, including all transferred resources.
>
> * If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
> of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
> demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
> which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>
>
> and add to the NRPM Section 12:
>
> 10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance
> for addresses transferred under 8.3.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:53 PM
To: Alexander, Daniel
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for 
IPv4transfers

I still oppose the policy. This policy is still a speculators dream and will 
have
negative impacts on the proper and reasonable management of IPv4 address
space by removing the needs-basis for any amount of transfers up to an 
aggregate
/12 (more than 1/4096th of total IPv4 unicast space).

Worse, this would actually prevent inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN 
region as it
is currently worded below.

Owen

On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> Hello PPML,
>
> Some changes are being considered in the text of prop-151, and I would
> like to solicit some feedback. The modifications are summarized below
> along with the resulting text. Given the conversations surrounding 2011-1,
> it seems like a good time to continue the discussion with this text.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Alexander
>
>
> Changes to the original text:
>
> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.
>
> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".
>
> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
> possibility of inter-RIR transfers.
>
> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
> conditions.
>
>
> Resulting text:
>
>
> Replace Section 8.3 with
>
> 8.3 ARIN will process and record IPv4 address transfer requests.
>
> Conditions on source of the transfer:
>
> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the
> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
> the status of those resources.
>
> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.
>
> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from
> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.
>
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>
>
> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>
> * The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
>
> * The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
>
> * The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
> to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
> IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
> to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
> space held, including all transferred resources.
>
> * If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
> of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
> demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
> which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>
> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>
>
> and add to the NRPM Section 12:
>
> 10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance
> for addresses transferred under 8.3.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. 



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 23 11:02:35 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:02:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
 IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <25117D36BB9E41CC9006ED64298E2212@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
	<25117D36BB9E41CC9006ED64298E2212@MPC>
Message-ID: <2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, and
> global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring Whois
> accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law,
> equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist
> duties as stewards of the free pool.
> 
> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to answer
> the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS
> justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs.  My
> fear is that legally, the deal would be done.

Mike - 
 
 I believe the community needs to consider this policy proposal
 and decide its merits, and my comment is not intended to be in
 favor or opposed in any manner, but solely to clarify one point
 in your remarks in their consideration of the proposal.

 ARIN is _presently_ "aligned with the legal realities of property 
 law"; this policy proposal is not necessary on purely on that 
 basis despite what some my infer from your remarks.

 Specifically, ARIN views that address holders have certain rights
 (such as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space 
 within the ARIN registry database as well as the right to transfer 
 the registration of the space), however we note that other parties 
 also have rights with respect to the same registrations (such as 
 the right to have visibility into the public portion of the address
 registrations).  ARIN asserts that the policies adopted in the region 
 are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence the 
 intersection of these rights, and have not have any finding to the 
 contrary in any court of law.  

 In fact, we are increasingly dealing with parties who are aware of
 this in advance and actively incorporate the appropriate language 
 in their sale/transfer documents.

 The proposal could easily be worthwhile on many other merits, but 
 it is important to be clear regarding ARIN's legal compliance.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN








From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Nov 23 12:31:26 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:31:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
	forIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><25117D36BB9E41CC
	9006ED64298E2212@MPC>
	<2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <D24BED0CCC204A36878921A67B4B9C72@MPC>

John,

What would happen if a sole proprietor who had been allocated a legacy block 
in 1996 divorced his wife and a divorce court judge decided this was a 
marital asset that should be split between husband and wife?

Or, what if he went bankrupt and the bankruptcy judge decided to sell the 
block in three pieces to maximize returns to the creditors?

What if he failed to pay his child support and a judge put a lien on the 
assets?

What if he were successfully sued for sexual harassment and the addresses 
were included in a judgment?

What if he sells his business to a group of three investors, who then decide 
to split the assets and venture out on their own?

What if he pledges the assets as collateral on a loan that defaults?

Do the recipients in these cases have to justify the addresses before ARIN 
would update Whois?


Regards,

Mike







-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Owen DeLong ; Alexander, Daniel ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements 
forIPv4transfers

On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, 
> and
> global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring 
> Whois
> accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law,
> equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist
> duties as stewards of the free pool.
>
> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to 
> answer
> the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS
> justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs. 
> My
> fear is that legally, the deal would be done.

Mike -

I believe the community needs to consider this policy proposal
and decide its merits, and my comment is not intended to be in
favor or opposed in any manner, but solely to clarify one point
in your remarks in their consideration of the proposal.

ARIN is _presently_ "aligned with the legal realities of property
law"; this policy proposal is not necessary on purely on that
basis despite what some my infer from your remarks.

Specifically, ARIN views that address holders have certain rights
(such as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space
within the ARIN registry database as well as the right to transfer
the registration of the space), however we note that other parties
also have rights with respect to the same registrations (such as
the right to have visibility into the public portion of the address
registrations).  ARIN asserts that the policies adopted in the region
are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence the
intersection of these rights, and have not have any finding to the
contrary in any court of law.

In fact, we are increasingly dealing with parties who are aware of
this in advance and actively incorporate the appropriate language
in their sale/transfer documents.

The proposal could easily be worthwhile on many other merits, but
it is important to be clear regarding ARIN's legal compliance.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN







From owen at delong.com  Wed Nov 23 12:33:55 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:33:55 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
	IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <9111DD93CDA642EFB978C33574517E35@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
	<9111DD93CDA642EFB978C33574517E35@MPC>
Message-ID: <B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com>


On Nov 23, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> First, thanks to Daniel for suggesting changes to Prop-151.
> 
> Clearly there is a consensus for allowing out of region transfers, that much is clear.
> 
> But the devil is in the details, and I think that post-Philadelphia discussion on this list served to point out potential pitfalls of 2011-1, one of which was the danger of a raid on the free pool driven by pecuniary interests.
> 
> Because once Inter-RIR transfers are allowed, a real demand for transferred addresses will exist for the first time, MS/Nortel notwithstanding.
> 

I think the final language of 2011-1 contains reasonable safeguards against it becoming a raid on the ARIN free pool.

> Prop-151 seeks to recognize the bald facts of human greed and deal with them proactively to protect the free pool in two ways.
> 

Protecting the free pool at the expense of abandoning rational policy and protection from speculative pricing in the transfer world is not, IMHO, in the best interests of the community at large.

> First, it prevents the selling of addresses from anybody who has received an allocation from the free pool in the prior 12 months. This would serve as a check against those who would seek to receive allocations of free addresses with the intent of selling them in the transfer market.
> 

This would be one of the few provisions of 151 that I do not object to.

> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential profits are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the high risk of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by oversized returns.

Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the needs-free cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place like a /22. At /22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but significantly less damaging than the current proposal would be.

> 
> And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that people will see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly.  That means in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause people to use this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN justification policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on the size of allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used only internally) is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be wrung out of the pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool of legacy space. Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more efficiently than free ones.

Do not attribute your ill-conceived conclusions to me. Nowhere have I stated that value of IP addresses would, in fact, cause them to be used efficiently. In fact, I have argued quite the opposite that value without policy will lead to speculation and artificial pricing not dissimilar from the Tulip Mania of the 1600s. You continue to use this fallacy of "allocated but unrouted" as if route announcements visible to your perspective are somehow an accurate measure of utilization. They are not. There are many addresses in perfectly legitimate use that are not advertised in routing tables visible to you. I won't disagree that more efficiency could be obtained from the pool of prior ARIN allocations, but, I'm not convinced that it is as big a gain as you seem to think. As to your claim that it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more efficiently than free ones, I am unconvinced. Unless you define efficiency solely in terms of the assets landing in the hands of the highest bidder and not based on them serving the highest societal purpose, your axiom can be shown to break down many times throughout history.

> 
> And speaking of legacy space, this proposal would recognize what ARIN lawyers are trying to tell us, namely that ARIN's legal position insofar as restricting legacy space transfers is weak. ARIN can certainly refuse to book these transfers, but it is by no means certain, legally, that ARIN has any right to block them.  I believe ARIN counsel recognizes the difficulty and expense involved in trying to either prevent transfers of legacy space or revoking/reclaiming it.
> 

I don't see how this proposal improves that situation at all. I think that the current policy deals with the issues just as well as this one would, with the difference that it at least preserves some potential for preserving the community's ability to set rational policy for IPv4.

> By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial and un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.
> 

That market restraint is, IMHO, neither artificial nor unnecessary, but, rather very real and vital to preventing speculative hoarding of addresses placing the interests of greed over the efficient utilization of address resources. That is why I believe the entire premise of 151 is so completely flawed.

> We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, and global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring Whois accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law, equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist duties as stewards of the free pool.
> 

Those first steps were taken with 2009-1. This isn't first steps. It's not even a continuation of that journey on a rational path. It's a nearly complete abandonment of reason in favor of sanctioned greed to the great detriment of the community.

> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to answer the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS justified the transfer to ARIN?"

The transfer would not have been recognized in the ARIN database absent a court order to the contrary. No such court order has ever been granted and I have no reason to believe that one necessarily would have been granted in this case.

> Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs.  My fear is that legally, the deal would be done.  Whois would be ignored or replaced by a private registry. Addresses revoked and reissued would subject ARIN to lawsuits. A breakdown in Whois could lead to ITU becoming more invasive.  If we stand in defiance of a free, open, and transparent market we will be creating a black market.

Yeah, we've all heard this doom and gloom scenario before. Frankly, I think it's not very likely and depends on a number of events being decided very poorly all in a row. I have more faith in ARIN's legal counsel and in our judiciary than you apparently do. Frankly, what you are seeking to do is enact most of the negative aspects of that scenario pre-emptively, so, I don't see how this proposal is better. Throwing open the gates and inviting the invading army to dinner really isn't an improvement over waiting to at least see whether or not there is actually a siege to defend.


The views expressed here are my own and may not be shared by any other member of the AC or my employer.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 23 12:49:52 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:49:52 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
 forIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <D24BED0CCC204A36878921A67B4B9C72@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><25117D36BB9E41CC
	9006ED64298E2212@MPC>
	<2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net>
	<D24BED0CCC204A36878921A67B4B9C72@MPC>
Message-ID: <684EF307-2585-4D46-9C6E-657F9464E67A@arin.net>

Mike - 
 
 In all cases, we update the ARIN registry in accordance 
 with the adopted policy.  If these happen without us 
 being involved, then we seek a motion of clarification.
 We just recently have had a judge go back and revise their 
 order to make clear that their nothing in their previous
 order effected a sale ?free and clear? of any interest of 
 ARIN whatsoever, which then provides us the opportunity to
 explain how the community wants these resources managed.
  
FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Nov 23, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> John,
> 
> What would happen if a sole proprietor who had been allocated a legacy block in 1996 divorced his wife and a divorce court judge decided this was a marital asset that should be split between husband and wife?
> 
> Or, what if he went bankrupt and the bankruptcy judge decided to sell the block in three pieces to maximize returns to the creditors?
> 
> What if he failed to pay his child support and a judge put a lien on the assets?
> 
> What if he were successfully sued for sexual harassment and the addresses were included in a judgment?
> 
> What if he sells his business to a group of three investors, who then decide to split the assets and venture out on their own?
> 
> What if he pledges the assets as collateral on a loan that defaults?
> 
> Do the recipients in these cases have to justify the addresses before ARIN would update Whois?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Owen DeLong ; Alexander, Daniel ; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements forIPv4transfers
> 
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> 
>> We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, and
>> global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring Whois
>> accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law,
>> equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist
>> duties as stewards of the free pool.
>> 
>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to answer
>> the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS
>> justified the transfer to ARIN?"
>> Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs. My
>> fear is that legally, the deal would be done.
> 
> Mike -
> 
> I believe the community needs to consider this policy proposal
> and decide its merits, and my comment is not intended to be in
> favor or opposed in any manner, but solely to clarify one point
> in your remarks in their consideration of the proposal.
> 
> ARIN is _presently_ "aligned with the legal realities of property
> law"; this policy proposal is not necessary on purely on that
> basis despite what some my infer from your remarks.
> 
> Specifically, ARIN views that address holders have certain rights
> (such as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space
> within the ARIN registry database as well as the right to transfer
> the registration of the space), however we note that other parties
> also have rights with respect to the same registrations (such as
> the right to have visibility into the public portion of the address
> registrations).  ARIN asserts that the policies adopted in the region
> are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence the
> intersection of these rights, and have not have any finding to the
> contrary in any court of law.
> 
> In fact, we are increasingly dealing with parties who are aware of
> this in advance and actively incorporate the appropriate language
> in their sale/transfer documents.
> 
> The proposal could easily be worthwhile on many other merits, but
> it is important to be clear regarding ARIN's legal compliance.
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Nov 23 13:12:29 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:12:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
	IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
	<9111DD93CDA642EFB978C33574517E35@MPC>
	<B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com>
Message-ID: <85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC>

Hi Owen, responses inline.



>> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen 
>> helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like 
>> this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential 
>> profits are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the 
>> high risk of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by 
>> oversized returns.

>Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually 
>equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the needs-free 
>cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place like a /22. At 
>/22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but significantly less damaging 
>than the current proposal would be.

I am open to reviewing that number, I don?t really think there will be many 
large transfers to those who cannot justify them.  The number was initially 
suggested by David Farmer and I don't think it absurd, rather a good middle 
which would limit market cornering while allowing most transfers to flow 
smoothly into Whois.

>
>> And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that people 
>> will see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly. 
>> That means in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause 
>> people to use this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN 
>> justification policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on 
>> the size of allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used 
>> only internally) is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be 
>> wrung out of the pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool 
>> of legacy space. Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable 
>> assets are used more efficiently than free ones.

>Do not attribute your ill-conceived conclusions to me. Nowhere have I 
>stated that value of IP addresses would, in fact, cause them to be used 
>efficiently. In fact, I have argued quite the opposite that value without 
>policy will lead to speculation and artificial pricing not dissimilar from 
>the Tulip Mania of the 1600s. You continue to use this fallacy of 
>"allocated but unrouted" as if route announcements visible to your 
>perspective are somehow an accurate measure of utilization. They are not. 
>There are many addresses in perfectly legitimate use that are not 
>advertised in routing tables visible to you. I won't disagree that more 
>efficiency could be obtained from the pool of prior ARIN allocations, but, 
>I'm not convinced that it is as big a gain as you seem to think. As to your 
>claim that it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more efficiently 
>than free ones, I am unconvinced. Unless you define efficiency solely in 
>terms of the assets landing in the hands of the highest bidder and not 
>based on them serving the highest societal purpose, your axiom can be shown 
>to break down many times throughout history.

You misunderstand what I said. What I meant was that  you fear the monetary 
value of IPv4 addresses will lead to hoarding and speculation, you have 
clearly stated that before.  My point was that if you recognize that a 
monetary value on IPv4 addresses could drive behaviors like hoarding and 
speculation, you must also agree that it will drive behaviors like utilizing 
them more efficiently and selling un- or under-used space.  Absent any real 
data, it's only a matter of opinion as to what the difference between 
allocated and advertised space represents. In my opinion it represents waste 
for the most part, as the 10/8 block is available for private use. As to 
your last point, addresses will land in the hands of the highest bidder no 
matter what we do.


>> By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial and 
>> un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive 
>> transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.
>

>That market restraint is, IMHO, neither artificial nor unnecessary, but, 
>rather very real and vital to preventing speculative hoarding of addresses 
>placing the interests of greed over the efficient utilization of address 
>resources. That is why I believe the entire premise of 151 is so completely 
>flawed.

Back to speculative  hoarding even though the hoarder is faced with an 
uncertain transition time, uncertain market conditions, uncertain 
governance, and a hard cap of controlling a maximum of .024% of total space. 
And of course none has ever been shown to exist, yet you risk Whois accuracy 
to maintain unnecessary roadblocks to natural transactions.


>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to 
>> answer the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had 
>> not MS justified the transfer to ARIN?"

>The transfer would not have been recognized in the ARIN database absent a 
>court order to the contrary. No such court order has ever been granted and 
>I have no reason to believe that one necessarily would have been granted in 
>this case.

Absolutely correct, ARIN would not have updated Whois, but Microsoft would 
own the address rights to blocks listed in Whois as belonging to ancient and 
defunct prior acquisitions of the defunct Nortel. This is not a desirable 
outcome, IMHO.

Regards,

Mike




From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Nov 23 13:16:19 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:16:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs
	requirementsforIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <684EF307-2585-4D46-9C6E-657F9464E67A@arin.net>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><25117D36BB9E41CC
	9006ED64298E2212@MPC>
	<2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net><D24BED0CCC204A36878921A67B4B9C72@MPC>
	<684EF307-2585-4D46-9C6E-657F9464E67A@arin.net>
Message-ID: <7D26B3D8C3E14B0C8D63E4B1279B8153@MPC>

John,

The current policy states that justification would be required of the 
recipient in all cases I proferred, in order for ARIN to update Whois.
Is that accurate? Assume all these decisions are happening today.

Was the judge in your response dealing with legacy space under no RSA with 
ARIN?

Regards,

Mike


-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:49 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net (arin-ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs 
requirementsforIPv4transfers

Mike -

In all cases, we update the ARIN registry in accordance
with the adopted policy.  If these happen without us
being involved, then we seek a motion of clarification.
We just recently have had a judge go back and revise their
order to make clear that their nothing in their previous
order effected a sale ?free and clear? of any interest of
ARIN whatsoever, which then provides us the opportunity to
explain how the community wants these resources managed.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Nov 23, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> John,
>
> What would happen if a sole proprietor who had been allocated a legacy 
> block in 1996 divorced his wife and a divorce court judge decided this was 
> a marital asset that should be split between husband and wife?
>
> Or, what if he went bankrupt and the bankruptcy judge decided to sell the 
> block in three pieces to maximize returns to the creditors?
>
> What if he failed to pay his child support and a judge put a lien on the 
> assets?
>
> What if he were successfully sued for sexual harassment and the addresses 
> were included in a judgment?
>
> What if he sells his business to a group of three investors, who then 
> decide to split the assets and venture out on their own?
>
> What if he pledges the assets as collateral on a loan that defaults?
>
> Do the recipients in these cases have to justify the addresses before ARIN 
> would update Whois?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Owen DeLong ; Alexander, Daniel ; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements 
> forIPv4transfers
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>> We take the first steps towards supporting a viable, open, transparent, 
>> and
>> global market for IPv4 addresses which is the best method of ensuring 
>> Whois
>> accuracy, aligning ARIN policy with the legal realities of property law,
>> equalizing regional exhaust dates, and discharging our conservationist
>> duties as stewards of the free pool.
>>
>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to 
>> answer
>> the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS
>> justified the transfer to ARIN?"
>> Please consider the situation we will be in when this inevitably occurs. 
>> My
>> fear is that legally, the deal would be done.
>
> Mike -
>
> I believe the community needs to consider this policy proposal
> and decide its merits, and my comment is not intended to be in
> favor or opposed in any manner, but solely to clarify one point
> in your remarks in their consideration of the proposal.
>
> ARIN is _presently_ "aligned with the legal realities of property
> law"; this policy proposal is not necessary on purely on that
> basis despite what some my infer from your remarks.
>
> Specifically, ARIN views that address holders have certain rights
> (such as exclusive right to be the registrant of the address space
> within the ARIN registry database as well as the right to transfer
> the registration of the space), however we note that other parties
> also have rights with respect to the same registrations (such as
> the right to have visibility into the public portion of the address
> registrations).  ARIN asserts that the policies adopted in the region
> are the basis by which we will manage the registry and hence the
> intersection of these rights, and have not have any finding to the
> contrary in any court of law.
>
> In fact, we are increasingly dealing with parties who are aware of
> this in advance and actively incorporate the appropriate language
> in their sale/transfer documents.
>
> The proposal could easily be worthwhile on many other merits, but
> it is important to be clear regarding ARIN's legal compliance.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
> 


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 23 13:36:30 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:36:30 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs
 requirementsforIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <7D26B3D8C3E14B0C8D63E4B1279B8153@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><25117D36BB9E41CC
	9006ED64298E2212@MPC>
	<2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net><D24BED0CCC204A36878921A67B4B9C72@MPC>
	<684EF307-2585-4D46-9C6E-657F9464E67A@arin.net>
	<7D26B3D8C3E14B0C8D63E4B1279B8153@MPC>
Message-ID: <2C4D2F16-8C99-4FB1-B8BE-56149627B07A@arin.net>

On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> John,
> 
> The current policy states that justification would be required of the recipient in all cases I proferred, in order for ARIN to update Whois.
> Is that accurate? Assume all these decisions are happening today.

Yes, I believe that is correct.

> Was the judge in your response dealing with legacy space under no RSA with ARIN?

Yes.

Happy Holidays,
/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN



From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Nov 23 13:46:18 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:46:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting
	needsrequirementsforIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <2C4D2F16-8C99-4FB1-B8BE-56149627B07A@arin.net>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><25117D36BB9E41CC
	9006ED64298E2212@MPC><2E43646D-042F-4CF6-ADBF-3D5E5B0D5605@corp.arin.net><D24BED0CCC204A36878921A67B4B9C72@MPC><684EF307-2585-4
	D46-9C6E-657F9464E67A@arin.net><7D26B3D8C3E14B0C8D63E4B1279B8153@MPC>
	<2C4D2F16-8C99-4FB1-B8BE-56149627B07A@arin.net>
Message-ID: <09CBDCD8E19E4CA4A845DD5A946BFCA7@MPC>

Thanks John and Happy Holidays to you also.

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:36 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting 
needsrequirementsforIPv4transfers

On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> John,
>
> The current policy states that justification would be required of the 
> recipient in all cases I proferred, in order for ARIN to update Whois.
> Is that accurate? Assume all these decisions are happening today.

Yes, I believe that is correct.

> Was the judge in your response dealing with legacy space under no RSA with 
> ARIN?

Yes.

Happy Holidays,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN 



From owen at delong.com  Wed Nov 23 13:53:45 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:53:45 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
	IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
	<9111DD93CDA642EFB978C33574517E35@MPC>
	<B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com>
	<85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC>
Message-ID: <335F94FC-7975-445F-A669-67C1FFBED9AC@delong.com>


On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Owen, responses inline.
> 
> 
> 
>>> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential profits are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the high risk of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by oversized returns.
> 
>> Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the needs-free cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place like a /22. At /22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but significantly less damaging than the current proposal would be.
> 
> I am open to reviewing that number, I don?t really think there will be many large transfers to those who cannot justify them.  The number was initially suggested by David Farmer and I don't think it absurd, rather a good middle which would limit market cornering while allowing most transfers to flow smoothly into Whois.
> 

I think it's useless at best and I think that large transfers without justification to speculators are the inevitable conclusion of this policy. A /12 is an incredible number of addresses. It's more than 1/4000th of the total unicast address space. ARIN has less than 1% of members that qualify for such vast resource holdings through the current justification process. That's hardly a middle... It's the far extreme top.

>> 
>>> And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that people will see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly. That means in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause people to use this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN justification policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on the size of allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used only internally) is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be wrung out of the pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool of legacy space. Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more efficiently than free ones.
> 
>> Do not attribute your ill-conceived conclusions to me. Nowhere have I stated that value of IP addresses would, in fact, cause them to be used efficiently. In fact, I have argued quite the opposite that value without policy will lead to speculation and artificial pricing not dissimilar from the Tulip Mania of the 1600s. You continue to use this fallacy of "allocated but unrouted" as if route announcements visible to your perspective are somehow an accurate measure of utilization. They are not. There are many addresses in perfectly legitimate use that are not advertised in routing tables visible to you. I won't disagree that more efficiency could be obtained from the pool of prior ARIN allocations, but, I'm not convinced that it is as big a gain as you seem to think. As to your claim that it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more efficiently than free ones, I am unconvinced. Unless you define efficiency solely in terms of the assets landing in the hands of the highest bidder and not based on them serving the highest societal purpose, your axiom can be shown to break down many times throughout history.
> 
> You misunderstand what I said. What I meant was that  you fear the monetary value of IPv4 addresses will lead to hoarding and speculation, you have clearly stated that before.  My point was that if you recognize that a monetary value on IPv4 addresses could drive behaviors like hoarding and speculation, you must also agree that it will drive behaviors like utilizing them more efficiently and selling un- or under-used space.  Absent any real data, it's only a matter of opinion as to what the difference between allocated and advertised space represents. In my opinion it represents waste for the most part, as the 10/8 block is available for private use. As to your last point, addresses will land in the hands of the highest bidder no matter what we do.
> 

I may not have properly understood your meaning initially, but, I did not misunderstand what you said.

I wouldn't say that I "fear" the monetary value of IPv4 addresses, but, rather that I recognize that absent appropriate policy to the contrary, these things will happen. They have historically happened in every unregulated market of scarce resources, so, they are likely inevitable here absent contrary regulation. As such, I believe it is our duty to impose that regulation to prevent these negative consequences.

Why does the fact that monetary value will drive hoarding and speculation (horribly inefficient uses of IP addresses) have any automatic relationship to a belief that it will drive efficiency?

Finally, some of us have some real data on how at least some of those addresses you don't see in routing tables are being utilized and I can tell you at least this much about some of them:

1. 10/8 doesn't work in all applications. In some cases, private networks talk to other networks even though they don't talk directly to the internet. There is the potential that those networks need addresses which are unique across the other internetworks that they do talk to, some of which may be connected to the global internet. As such, globally unique unicast addresses may be completely justified and necessary in those applications.
2. Many of those networks are as efficiently utilized (80+%) as any policy requirement in the modern ARIN structure.

Just because it isn't in a routing table you can see doesn't mean it isn't in a routing table or that it is wasteful. Continuing to pretend that it does will not make it so.

I would much rather see us use policy that leads to results such as how droughts have been handled in California (current policy text) rather than policy that leads to events like Tulip Mania and/or Enron. Proposal 151 represents a huge step in the direction towards Enron/Tulip Mania for the IPv4 address market.

> 
>>> By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial and un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.
>> 
> 
>> That market restraint is, IMHO, neither artificial nor unnecessary, but, rather very real and vital to preventing speculative hoarding of addresses placing the interests of greed over the efficient utilization of address resources. That is why I believe the entire premise of 151 is so completely flawed.
> 
> Back to speculative  hoarding even though the hoarder is faced with an uncertain transition time, uncertain market conditions, uncertain governance, and a hard cap of controlling a maximum of .024% of total space. And of course none has ever been shown to exist, yet you risk Whois accuracy to maintain unnecessary roadblocks to natural transactions.
> 

Hoarders are always faced with uncertainties such as the ones you describe. As to the hard cap, that's not a meaningful analysis of the situation. First, let's look at the total likely market of available addresses. The most generous estimate I've seen says that as many as 14 /8s might come available through market processes. That's only 6.3% of total address space to begin with. Of that, a /12 represents 1.7% of the total market, assuming the market reaches that most optimistic level of supply. Given that, the mere creation of 24 organizations would be more than enough to hoard enough resources to command 35%+ of the total market under proposed policy.

> 
>>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to answer the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had not MS justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> 
>> The transfer would not have been recognized in the ARIN database absent a court order to the contrary. No such court order has ever been granted and I have no reason to believe that one necessarily would have been granted in this case.
> 
> Absolutely correct, ARIN would not have updated Whois, but Microsoft would own the address rights to blocks listed in Whois as belonging to ancient and defunct prior acquisitions of the defunct Nortel. This is not a desirable outcome, IMHO.
> 

What rights? What are these alleged address rights? What do those rights mean?

You have no right to tell me that I can't use a number on my network no matter what the ARIN database or anyone else says.
You have no right to tell an ISP that you are not paying to route packets with those numbers in the destination field that they
must route those packets to you.
Address rights are, for the most part, a myth for all practical purposes.

What you have, instead, is a set of ISPs and others that generally cooperate based on a centralized registry of what the
community has chosen to recognize as authoritative information on who should be allowed to use particular numbers
for a particular purpose. Take away that agreement and the whole system devolves into chaos. The court cannot force
changes to that agreement, at least not easily, because it is generally out of scope for the court to make rulings forcing
entities that are not parties to a case to take actions in support of the case.

Let's suppose in the hypothetical situation that you describe, ARIN recognized that the previous address holders were
obviously defunct (through bankruptcy) and returned the addresses to the ARIN free pool. Since we're going hypothetical
here, instead of using a company name for the address usurper, let's call them Brand G.

ARIN now issue some of the addresses to Brand L, but, at the time informs Brand L that they might face issues with
Brand G as a result and explains the history. Brand L is sufficiently desperate for IP addresses that they choose to
accept the risk.

Brand L takes their whois registration and goes to their ISP and starts advertising these routes. ISP gets a call
from Brand G, whom ISP has no business relationship with. ISP can do one of two things:

1.	Tell Brand G. to take it up with ARIN, they're not registered in whois.
2.	Stop advertising the routes for Brand L.

My guess is that it's a bit of a toss up here and depends largely on the relative size and fear factors of
pissing off Brand G. vs. Brand L. as to which way said ISP is likely to go.

In the case where Brand G gets told to go away, a lawsuit likely ensues where Brand G names ARIN,
Brand L, and the ISP as defendants.

In the case where Brand L gets screwed, a lawsuit likely ensues where Brand G and the ISP get
named as defendants with Brand L as plaintiff.

What would happen in either lawsuit is virtually anyone's guess. I think that the probability of Brand G
getting injunctive relief protecting their rights in an unrecognized and unregistered transfer may
be pretty slim in most possible cases. In the case where the transfer was done by the bankruptcy
court, they might stand a somewhat better chance, but, even there, it's hard to see where ARIN,
the ISP, or Brand L would have any obligation not to engage in conflicting use of the addresses
under any existing statute.

That's the fundamental thing most people seem to miss about the internet. It all depends on everyone
cooperating about these things. Take out cooperation and the system rapidly devolves into chaos.
Nothing takes out cooperation like greed. Hence my desire to keep greed as much removed from
address policy as possible.

Frankly, I think that the market will likely destroy the IPv4 operating environment and lead to its
rapid disintegration. I think it may be one of the most traumatic and one of the biggest motivators
for IPv6 deployment. However, in spite of the fact that I think an unregulated market has great
potential to advance the interests of IPv6, I think the damage it would do is too great and should
be mitigated as much as possible.

Again, these thoughts are entirely my own and I alone am responsible for them. I am not a lawyer
and nothing above should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. It is just my observations
based on what I have seen and read.

Owen



From kkargel at polartel.com  Wed Nov 23 14:02:26 2011
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:02:26 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
	for	IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <335F94FC-7975-445F-A669-67C1FFBED9AC@delong.com>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
	<9111DD93CDA642EFB978C33574517E35@MPC>
	<B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com>
	<85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC>
	<335F94FC-7975-445F-A669-67C1FFBED9AC@delong.com>
Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9E@MAIL1.polartel.local>

I have a side question..

If we allow transfers without needs requirements to non-arin customers can I
now request my very own /12 as an ARIN customer without proving need?  

I am wholeheartedly opposed to any policy that provides easier access for
non-members than it does for ARIN members.  That is just wrong on a number
of levels.  

Perhaps I am missing the whole point here.

Kevin


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:54 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Mike Burns
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
> IPv4transfers
> 
> 
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> 
> > Hi Owen, responses inline.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen
> helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like
> this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential
> profits are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the
> high risk of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by oversized
> returns.
> >
> >> Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually
> equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the needs-free
> cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place like a /22. At
> /22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but significantly less damaging
> than the current proposal would be.
> >
> > I am open to reviewing that number, I don't really think there will be
> many large transfers to those who cannot justify them.  The number was
> initially suggested by David Farmer and I don't think it absurd, rather a
> good middle which would limit market cornering while allowing most
> transfers to flow smoothly into Whois.
> >
> 
> I think it's useless at best and I think that large transfers without
> justification to speculators are the inevitable conclusion of this policy.
> A /12 is an incredible number of addresses. It's more than 1/4000th of the
> total unicast address space. ARIN has less than 1% of members that qualify
> for such vast resource holdings through the current justification process.
> That's hardly a middle... It's the far extreme top.
> 
> >>
> >>> And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that people
> will see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly. That
> means in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause people
> to use this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN
> justification policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on the
> size of allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used only
> internally) is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be wrung
> out of the pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool of
> legacy space. Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable
> assets are used more efficiently than free ones.
> >
> >> Do not attribute your ill-conceived conclusions to me. Nowhere have I
> stated that value of IP addresses would, in fact, cause them to be used
> efficiently. In fact, I have argued quite the opposite that value without
> policy will lead to speculation and artificial pricing not dissimilar from
> the Tulip Mania of the 1600s. You continue to use this fallacy of
> "allocated but unrouted" as if route announcements visible to your
> perspective are somehow an accurate measure of utilization. They are not.
> There are many addresses in perfectly legitimate use that are not
> advertised in routing tables visible to you. I won't disagree that more
> efficiency could be obtained from the pool of prior ARIN allocations, but,
> I'm not convinced that it is as big a gain as you seem to think. As to
> your claim that it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more
> efficiently than free ones, I am unconvinced. Unless you define efficiency
> solely in terms of the assets landing in the hands of the highest bidder
> and not based on them serving the highest societal purpose, your axiom can
> be shown to break down many times throughout history.
> >
> > You misunderstand what I said. What I meant was that  you fear the
> monetary value of IPv4 addresses will lead to hoarding and speculation,
> you have clearly stated that before.  My point was that if you recognize
> that a monetary value on IPv4 addresses could drive behaviors like
> hoarding and speculation, you must also agree that it will drive behaviors
> like utilizing them more efficiently and selling un- or under-used space.
> Absent any real data, it's only a matter of opinion as to what the
> difference between allocated and advertised space represents. In my
> opinion it represents waste for the most part, as the 10/8 block is
> available for private use. As to your last point, addresses will land in
> the hands of the highest bidder no matter what we do.
> >
> 
> I may not have properly understood your meaning initially, but, I did not
> misunderstand what you said.
> 
> I wouldn't say that I "fear" the monetary value of IPv4 addresses, but,
> rather that I recognize that absent appropriate policy to the contrary,
> these things will happen. They have historically happened in every
> unregulated market of scarce resources, so, they are likely inevitable
> here absent contrary regulation. As such, I believe it is our duty to
> impose that regulation to prevent these negative consequences.
> 
> Why does the fact that monetary value will drive hoarding and speculation
> (horribly inefficient uses of IP addresses) have any automatic
> relationship to a belief that it will drive efficiency?
> 
> Finally, some of us have some real data on how at least some of those
> addresses you don't see in routing tables are being utilized and I can
> tell you at least this much about some of them:
> 
> 1. 10/8 doesn't work in all applications. In some cases, private networks
> talk to other networks even though they don't talk directly to the
> internet. There is the potential that those networks need addresses which
> are unique across the other internetworks that they do talk to, some of
> which may be connected to the global internet. As such, globally unique
> unicast addresses may be completely justified and necessary in those
> applications.
> 2. Many of those networks are as efficiently utilized (80+%) as any policy
> requirement in the modern ARIN structure.
> 
> Just because it isn't in a routing table you can see doesn't mean it isn't
> in a routing table or that it is wasteful. Continuing to pretend that it
> does will not make it so.
> 
> I would much rather see us use policy that leads to results such as how
> droughts have been handled in California (current policy text) rather than
> policy that leads to events like Tulip Mania and/or Enron. Proposal 151
> represents a huge step in the direction towards Enron/Tulip Mania for the
> IPv4 address market.
> 
> >
> >>> By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial
> and un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive
> transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.
> >>
> >
> >> That market restraint is, IMHO, neither artificial nor unnecessary,
> but, rather very real and vital to preventing speculative hoarding of
> addresses placing the interests of greed over the efficient utilization of
> address resources. That is why I believe the entire premise of 151 is so
> completely flawed.
> >
> > Back to speculative  hoarding even though the hoarder is faced with an
> uncertain transition time, uncertain market conditions, uncertain
> governance, and a hard cap of controlling a maximum of .024% of total
> space. And of course none has ever been shown to exist, yet you risk Whois
> accuracy to maintain unnecessary roadblocks to natural transactions.
> >
> 
> Hoarders are always faced with uncertainties such as the ones you
> describe. As to the hard cap, that's not a meaningful analysis of the
> situation. First, let's look at the total likely market of available
> addresses. The most generous estimate I've seen says that as many as 14
> /8s might come available through market processes. That's only 6.3% of
> total address space to begin with. Of that, a /12 represents 1.7% of the
> total market, assuming the market reaches that most optimistic level of
> supply. Given that, the mere creation of 24 organizations would be more
> than enough to hoard enough resources to command 35%+ of the total market
> under proposed policy.
> 
> >
> >>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to
> answer the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had
> not MS justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> >
> >> The transfer would not have been recognized in the ARIN database absent
> a court order to the contrary. No such court order has ever been granted
> and I have no reason to believe that one necessarily would have been
> granted in this case.
> >
> > Absolutely correct, ARIN would not have updated Whois, but Microsoft
> would own the address rights to blocks listed in Whois as belonging to
> ancient and defunct prior acquisitions of the defunct Nortel. This is not
> a desirable outcome, IMHO.
> >
> 
> What rights? What are these alleged address rights? What do those rights
> mean?
> 
> You have no right to tell me that I can't use a number on my network no
> matter what the ARIN database or anyone else says.
> You have no right to tell an ISP that you are not paying to route packets
> with those numbers in the destination field that they
> must route those packets to you.
> Address rights are, for the most part, a myth for all practical purposes.
> 
> What you have, instead, is a set of ISPs and others that generally
> cooperate based on a centralized registry of what the
> community has chosen to recognize as authoritative information on who
> should be allowed to use particular numbers
> for a particular purpose. Take away that agreement and the whole system
> devolves into chaos. The court cannot force
> changes to that agreement, at least not easily, because it is generally
> out of scope for the court to make rulings forcing
> entities that are not parties to a case to take actions in support of the
> case.
> 
> Let's suppose in the hypothetical situation that you describe, ARIN
> recognized that the previous address holders were
> obviously defunct (through bankruptcy) and returned the addresses to the
> ARIN free pool. Since we're going hypothetical
> here, instead of using a company name for the address usurper, let's call
> them Brand G.
> 
> ARIN now issue some of the addresses to Brand L, but, at the time informs
> Brand L that they might face issues with
> Brand G as a result and explains the history. Brand L is sufficiently
> desperate for IP addresses that they choose to
> accept the risk.
> 
> Brand L takes their whois registration and goes to their ISP and starts
> advertising these routes. ISP gets a call
> from Brand G, whom ISP has no business relationship with. ISP can do one
> of two things:
> 
> 1.	Tell Brand G. to take it up with ARIN, they're not registered in
> whois.
> 2.	Stop advertising the routes for Brand L.
> 
> My guess is that it's a bit of a toss up here and depends largely on the
> relative size and fear factors of
> pissing off Brand G. vs. Brand L. as to which way said ISP is likely to
> go.
> 
> In the case where Brand G gets told to go away, a lawsuit likely ensues
> where Brand G names ARIN,
> Brand L, and the ISP as defendants.
> 
> In the case where Brand L gets screwed, a lawsuit likely ensues where
> Brand G and the ISP get
> named as defendants with Brand L as plaintiff.
> 
> What would happen in either lawsuit is virtually anyone's guess. I think
> that the probability of Brand G
> getting injunctive relief protecting their rights in an unrecognized and
> unregistered transfer may
> be pretty slim in most possible cases. In the case where the transfer was
> done by the bankruptcy
> court, they might stand a somewhat better chance, but, even there, it's
> hard to see where ARIN,
> the ISP, or Brand L would have any obligation not to engage in conflicting
> use of the addresses
> under any existing statute.
> 
> That's the fundamental thing most people seem to miss about the internet.
> It all depends on everyone
> cooperating about these things. Take out cooperation and the system
> rapidly devolves into chaos.
> Nothing takes out cooperation like greed. Hence my desire to keep greed as
> much removed from
> address policy as possible.
> 
> Frankly, I think that the market will likely destroy the IPv4 operating
> environment and lead to its
> rapid disintegration. I think it may be one of the most traumatic and one
> of the biggest motivators
> for IPv6 deployment. However, in spite of the fact that I think an
> unregulated market has great
> potential to advance the interests of IPv6, I think the damage it would do
> is too great and should
> be mitigated as much as possible.
> 
> Again, these thoughts are entirely my own and I alone am responsible for
> them. I am not a lawyer
> and nothing above should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion.
> It is just my observations
> based on what I have seen and read.
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111123/d2eefcaa/attachment.bin>

From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Nov 23 14:12:29 2011
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:12:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
	forIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9E@MAIL1.polartel.local>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><9111DD93CDA642EF
	B978C33574517E35@MPC><B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com><85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC><335F94FC-7975-445F
	-A669-67C1FFBED9AC@delong.com>
	<8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9E@MAIL1.polartel.local>
Message-ID: <B445FE3772C24B688A5973D382934E08@MPC>

Hi Kevin,

This proposal only deals with 8.3 transfers, not with free pool allocations, 
which will continue to require a demonstrated need.
You can request a /12, but you would have to find a seller and pay his 
price.

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message----- 
From: Kevin Kargel
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:02 PM
To: 'Owen DeLong' ; Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net ; Mike Burns
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements 
forIPv4transfers

I have a side question..

If we allow transfers without needs requirements to non-arin customers can I
now request my very own /12 as an ARIN customer without proving need?

I am wholeheartedly opposed to any policy that provides easier access for
non-members than it does for ARIN members.  That is just wrong on a number
of levels.

Perhaps I am missing the whole point here.

Kevin




> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:54 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Mike Burns
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
> IPv4transfers
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> > Hi Owen, responses inline.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen
> helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like
> this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential
> profits are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the
> high risk of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by oversized
> returns.
> >
> >> Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually
> equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the needs-free
> cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place like a /22. At
> /22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but significantly less damaging
> than the current proposal would be.
> >
> > I am open to reviewing that number, I don't really think there will be
> many large transfers to those who cannot justify them.  The number was
> initially suggested by David Farmer and I don't think it absurd, rather a
> good middle which would limit market cornering while allowing most
> transfers to flow smoothly into Whois.
> >
>
> I think it's useless at best and I think that large transfers without
> justification to speculators are the inevitable conclusion of this policy.
> A /12 is an incredible number of addresses. It's more than 1/4000th of the
> total unicast address space. ARIN has less than 1% of members that qualify
> for such vast resource holdings through the current justification process.
> That's hardly a middle... It's the far extreme top.
>
> >>
> >>> And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that people
> will see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly. That
> means in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause people
> to use this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN
> justification policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on the
> size of allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used only
> internally) is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be wrung
> out of the pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool of
> legacy space. Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable
> assets are used more efficiently than free ones.
> >
> >> Do not attribute your ill-conceived conclusions to me. Nowhere have I
> stated that value of IP addresses would, in fact, cause them to be used
> efficiently. In fact, I have argued quite the opposite that value without
> policy will lead to speculation and artificial pricing not dissimilar from
> the Tulip Mania of the 1600s. You continue to use this fallacy of
> "allocated but unrouted" as if route announcements visible to your
> perspective are somehow an accurate measure of utilization. They are not.
> There are many addresses in perfectly legitimate use that are not
> advertised in routing tables visible to you. I won't disagree that more
> efficiency could be obtained from the pool of prior ARIN allocations, but,
> I'm not convinced that it is as big a gain as you seem to think. As to
> your claim that it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more
> efficiently than free ones, I am unconvinced. Unless you define efficiency
> solely in terms of the assets landing in the hands of the highest bidder
> and not based on them serving the highest societal purpose, your axiom can
> be shown to break down many times throughout history.
> >
> > You misunderstand what I said. What I meant was that  you fear the
> monetary value of IPv4 addresses will lead to hoarding and speculation,
> you have clearly stated that before.  My point was that if you recognize
> that a monetary value on IPv4 addresses could drive behaviors like
> hoarding and speculation, you must also agree that it will drive behaviors
> like utilizing them more efficiently and selling un- or under-used space.
> Absent any real data, it's only a matter of opinion as to what the
> difference between allocated and advertised space represents. In my
> opinion it represents waste for the most part, as the 10/8 block is
> available for private use. As to your last point, addresses will land in
> the hands of the highest bidder no matter what we do.
> >
>
> I may not have properly understood your meaning initially, but, I did not
> misunderstand what you said.
>
> I wouldn't say that I "fear" the monetary value of IPv4 addresses, but,
> rather that I recognize that absent appropriate policy to the contrary,
> these things will happen. They have historically happened in every
> unregulated market of scarce resources, so, they are likely inevitable
> here absent contrary regulation. As such, I believe it is our duty to
> impose that regulation to prevent these negative consequences.
>
> Why does the fact that monetary value will drive hoarding and speculation
> (horribly inefficient uses of IP addresses) have any automatic
> relationship to a belief that it will drive efficiency?
>
> Finally, some of us have some real data on how at least some of those
> addresses you don't see in routing tables are being utilized and I can
> tell you at least this much about some of them:
>
> 1. 10/8 doesn't work in all applications. In some cases, private networks
> talk to other networks even though they don't talk directly to the
> internet. There is the potential that those networks need addresses which
> are unique across the other internetworks that they do talk to, some of
> which may be connected to the global internet. As such, globally unique
> unicast addresses may be completely justified and necessary in those
> applications.
> 2. Many of those networks are as efficiently utilized (80+%) as any policy
> requirement in the modern ARIN structure.
>
> Just because it isn't in a routing table you can see doesn't mean it isn't
> in a routing table or that it is wasteful. Continuing to pretend that it
> does will not make it so.
>
> I would much rather see us use policy that leads to results such as how
> droughts have been handled in California (current policy text) rather than
> policy that leads to events like Tulip Mania and/or Enron. Proposal 151
> represents a huge step in the direction towards Enron/Tulip Mania for the
> IPv4 address market.
>
> >
> >>> By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial
> and un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive
> transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.
> >>
> >
> >> That market restraint is, IMHO, neither artificial nor unnecessary,
> but, rather very real and vital to preventing speculative hoarding of
> addresses placing the interests of greed over the efficient utilization of
> address resources. That is why I believe the entire premise of 151 is so
> completely flawed.
> >
> > Back to speculative  hoarding even though the hoarder is faced with an
> uncertain transition time, uncertain market conditions, uncertain
> governance, and a hard cap of controlling a maximum of .024% of total
> space. And of course none has ever been shown to exist, yet you risk Whois
> accuracy to maintain unnecessary roadblocks to natural transactions.
> >
>
> Hoarders are always faced with uncertainties such as the ones you
> describe. As to the hard cap, that's not a meaningful analysis of the
> situation. First, let's look at the total likely market of available
> addresses. The most generous estimate I've seen says that as many as 14
> /8s might come available through market processes. That's only 6.3% of
> total address space to begin with. Of that, a /12 represents 1.7% of the
> total market, assuming the market reaches that most optimistic level of
> supply. Given that, the mere creation of 24 organizations would be more
> than enough to hoard enough resources to command 35%+ of the total market
> under proposed policy.
>
> >
> >>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking to
> answer the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had
> not MS justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> >
> >> The transfer would not have been recognized in the ARIN database absent
> a court order to the contrary. No such court order has ever been granted
> and I have no reason to believe that one necessarily would have been
> granted in this case.
> >
> > Absolutely correct, ARIN would not have updated Whois, but Microsoft
> would own the address rights to blocks listed in Whois as belonging to
> ancient and defunct prior acquisitions of the defunct Nortel. This is not
> a desirable outcome, IMHO.
> >
>
> What rights? What are these alleged address rights? What do those rights
> mean?
>
> You have no right to tell me that I can't use a number on my network no
> matter what the ARIN database or anyone else says.
> You have no right to tell an ISP that you are not paying to route packets
> with those numbers in the destination field that they
> must route those packets to you.
> Address rights are, for the most part, a myth for all practical purposes.
>
> What you have, instead, is a set of ISPs and others that generally
> cooperate based on a centralized registry of what the
> community has chosen to recognize as authoritative information on who
> should be allowed to use particular numbers
> for a particular purpose. Take away that agreement and the whole system
> devolves into chaos. The court cannot force
> changes to that agreement, at least not easily, because it is generally
> out of scope for the court to make rulings forcing
> entities that are not parties to a case to take actions in support of the
> case.
>
> Let's suppose in the hypothetical situation that you describe, ARIN
> recognized that the previous address holders were
> obviously defunct (through bankruptcy) and returned the addresses to the
> ARIN free pool. Since we're going hypothetical
> here, instead of using a company name for the address usurper, let's call
> them Brand G.
>
> ARIN now issue some of the addresses to Brand L, but, at the time informs
> Brand L that they might face issues with
> Brand G as a result and explains the history. Brand L is sufficiently
> desperate for IP addresses that they choose to
> accept the risk.
>
> Brand L takes their whois registration and goes to their ISP and starts
> advertising these routes. ISP gets a call
> from Brand G, whom ISP has no business relationship with. ISP can do one
> of two things:
>
> 1. Tell Brand G. to take it up with ARIN, they're not registered in
> whois.
> 2. Stop advertising the routes for Brand L.
>
> My guess is that it's a bit of a toss up here and depends largely on the
> relative size and fear factors of
> pissing off Brand G. vs. Brand L. as to which way said ISP is likely to
> go.
>
> In the case where Brand G gets told to go away, a lawsuit likely ensues
> where Brand G names ARIN,
> Brand L, and the ISP as defendants.
>
> In the case where Brand L gets screwed, a lawsuit likely ensues where
> Brand G and the ISP get
> named as defendants with Brand L as plaintiff.
>
> What would happen in either lawsuit is virtually anyone's guess. I think
> that the probability of Brand G
> getting injunctive relief protecting their rights in an unrecognized and
> unregistered transfer may
> be pretty slim in most possible cases. In the case where the transfer was
> done by the bankruptcy
> court, they might stand a somewhat better chance, but, even there, it's
> hard to see where ARIN,
> the ISP, or Brand L would have any obligation not to engage in conflicting
> use of the addresses
> under any existing statute.
>
> That's the fundamental thing most people seem to miss about the internet.
> It all depends on everyone
> cooperating about these things. Take out cooperation and the system
> rapidly devolves into chaos.
> Nothing takes out cooperation like greed. Hence my desire to keep greed as
> much removed from
> address policy as possible.
>
> Frankly, I think that the market will likely destroy the IPv4 operating
> environment and lead to its
> rapid disintegration. I think it may be one of the most traumatic and one
> of the biggest motivators
> for IPv6 deployment. However, in spite of the fact that I think an
> unregulated market has great
> potential to advance the interests of IPv6, I think the damage it would do
> is too great and should
> be mitigated as much as possible.
>
> Again, these thoughts are entirely my own and I alone am responsible for
> them. I am not a lawyer
> and nothing above should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion.
> It is just my observations
> based on what I have seen and read.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. 



From kkargel at polartel.com  Wed Nov 23 14:22:45 2011
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:22:45 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
 forIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <B445FE3772C24B688A5973D382934E08@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><9111DD93CDA642EF
	B978C33574517E35@MPC><B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com><85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC><335F94FC-7975-445F
	-A669-67C1FFBED9AC@delong.com>
	<8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9E@MAIL1.polartel.local>
	<B445FE3772C24B688A5973D382934E08@MPC>
Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9F@MAIL1.polartel.local>



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:12 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel; 'Owen DeLong'
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Mike Burns
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
> forIPv4transfers
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> This proposal only deals with 8.3 transfers, not with free pool
> allocations,
> which will continue to require a demonstrated need.
> You can request a /12, but you would have to find a seller and pay his
> price.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike

[kjk] Thank you for the clarification Mike.  It will all be a lot easier to
swallow if it applies to both in and out of region recipients equally.
If there is to be any inequity then ARIN's scales should tip toward ARIN
members, not away from them.  


> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:02 PM
> To: 'Owen DeLong' ; Mike Burns
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net ; Mike Burns
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
> forIPv4transfers
> 
> I have a side question..
> 
> If we allow transfers without needs requirements to non-arin customers can
> I
> now request my very own /12 as an ARIN customer without proving need?
> 
> I am wholeheartedly opposed to any policy that provides easier access for
> non-members than it does for ARIN members.  That is just wrong on a number
> of levels.
> 
> Perhaps I am missing the whole point here.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:54 PM
> > To: Mike Burns
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Mike Burns
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
> > IPv4transfers
> >
> >
> > On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Owen, responses inline.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which
> Owen
> > helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap like
> > this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total potential
> > profits are limited, making this kind of speculation unsound because the
> > high risk of speculating in this market can not be outweighed by
> oversized
> > returns.
> > >
> > >> Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually
> > equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the needs-
> free
> > cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place like a /22. At
> > /22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but significantly less
> damaging
> > than the current proposal would be.
> > >
> > > I am open to reviewing that number, I don't really think there will be
> > many large transfers to those who cannot justify them.  The number was
> > initially suggested by David Farmer and I don't think it absurd, rather
> a
> > good middle which would limit market cornering while allowing most
> > transfers to flow smoothly into Whois.
> > >
> >
> > I think it's useless at best and I think that large transfers without
> > justification to speculators are the inevitable conclusion of this
> policy.
> > A /12 is an incredible number of addresses. It's more than 1/4000th of
> the
> > total unicast address space. ARIN has less than 1% of members that
> qualify
> > for such vast resource holdings through the current justification
> process.
> > That's hardly a middle... It's the far extreme top.
> >
> > >>
> > >>> And Prop-151 seeks to recognize what Owen and others fear, that
> people
> > will see monetary value in IPv4 addresses, and will act accordingly.
> That
> > means in addition to greed, IPv4 address value will naturally cause
> people
> > to use this valuable resource efficiently, to an extent that ARIN
> > justification policies simply can not match.  My own opinion, based on
> the
> > size of allocated but unrouted address space (less the smidgen used only
> > internally) is that there is a great deal of efficiency still to be
> wrung
> > out of the pool of prior ARIN allocations, not to mention the pool of
> > legacy space. Whether or not you agree, it is axiomatic that valuable
> > assets are used more efficiently than free ones.
> > >
> > >> Do not attribute your ill-conceived conclusions to me. Nowhere have I
> > stated that value of IP addresses would, in fact, cause them to be used
> > efficiently. In fact, I have argued quite the opposite that value
> without
> > policy will lead to speculation and artificial pricing not dissimilar
> from
> > the Tulip Mania of the 1600s. You continue to use this fallacy of
> > "allocated but unrouted" as if route announcements visible to your
> > perspective are somehow an accurate measure of utilization. They are
> not.
> > There are many addresses in perfectly legitimate use that are not
> > advertised in routing tables visible to you. I won't disagree that more
> > efficiency could be obtained from the pool of prior ARIN allocations,
> but,
> > I'm not convinced that it is as big a gain as you seem to think. As to
> > your claim that it is axiomatic that valuable assets are used more
> > efficiently than free ones, I am unconvinced. Unless you define
> efficiency
> > solely in terms of the assets landing in the hands of the highest bidder
> > and not based on them serving the highest societal purpose, your axiom
> can
> > be shown to break down many times throughout history.
> > >
> > > You misunderstand what I said. What I meant was that  you fear the
> > monetary value of IPv4 addresses will lead to hoarding and speculation,
> > you have clearly stated that before.  My point was that if you recognize
> > that a monetary value on IPv4 addresses could drive behaviors like
> > hoarding and speculation, you must also agree that it will drive
> behaviors
> > like utilizing them more efficiently and selling un- or under-used
> space.
> > Absent any real data, it's only a matter of opinion as to what the
> > difference between allocated and advertised space represents. In my
> > opinion it represents waste for the most part, as the 10/8 block is
> > available for private use. As to your last point, addresses will land in
> > the hands of the highest bidder no matter what we do.
> > >
> >
> > I may not have properly understood your meaning initially, but, I did
> not
> > misunderstand what you said.
> >
> > I wouldn't say that I "fear" the monetary value of IPv4 addresses, but,
> > rather that I recognize that absent appropriate policy to the contrary,
> > these things will happen. They have historically happened in every
> > unregulated market of scarce resources, so, they are likely inevitable
> > here absent contrary regulation. As such, I believe it is our duty to
> > impose that regulation to prevent these negative consequences.
> >
> > Why does the fact that monetary value will drive hoarding and
> speculation
> > (horribly inefficient uses of IP addresses) have any automatic
> > relationship to a belief that it will drive efficiency?
> >
> > Finally, some of us have some real data on how at least some of those
> > addresses you don't see in routing tables are being utilized and I can
> > tell you at least this much about some of them:
> >
> > 1. 10/8 doesn't work in all applications. In some cases, private
> networks
> > talk to other networks even though they don't talk directly to the
> > internet. There is the potential that those networks need addresses
> which
> > are unique across the other internetworks that they do talk to, some of
> > which may be connected to the global internet. As such, globally unique
> > unicast addresses may be completely justified and necessary in those
> > applications.
> > 2. Many of those networks are as efficiently utilized (80+%) as any
> policy
> > requirement in the modern ARIN structure.
> >
> > Just because it isn't in a routing table you can see doesn't mean it
> isn't
> > in a routing table or that it is wasteful. Continuing to pretend that it
> > does will not make it so.
> >
> > I would much rather see us use policy that leads to results such as how
> > droughts have been handled in California (current policy text) rather
> than
> > policy that leads to events like Tulip Mania and/or Enron. Proposal 151
> > represents a huge step in the direction towards Enron/Tulip Mania for
> the
> > IPv4 address market.
> >
> > >
> > >>> By allowing all transfers to be needs-free, we remove an artificial
> > and un-needed market restraint whose existence will only serve to drive
> > transfers off the books, with Whois accuracy diminished.
> > >>
> > >
> > >> That market restraint is, IMHO, neither artificial nor unnecessary,
> > but, rather very real and vital to preventing speculative hoarding of
> > addresses placing the interests of greed over the efficient utilization
> of
> > address resources. That is why I believe the entire premise of 151 is so
> > completely flawed.
> > >
> > > Back to speculative  hoarding even though the hoarder is faced with an
> > uncertain transition time, uncertain market conditions, uncertain
> > governance, and a hard cap of controlling a maximum of .024% of total
> > space. And of course none has ever been shown to exist, yet you risk
> Whois
> > accuracy to maintain unnecessary roadblocks to natural transactions.
> > >
> >
> > Hoarders are always faced with uncertainties such as the ones you
> > describe. As to the hard cap, that's not a meaningful analysis of the
> > situation. First, let's look at the total likely market of available
> > addresses. The most generous estimate I've seen says that as many as 14
> > /8s might come available through market processes. That's only 6.3% of
> > total address space to begin with. Of that, a /12 represents 1.7% of the
> > total market, assuming the market reaches that most optimistic level of
> > supply. Given that, the mere creation of 24 organizations would be more
> > than enough to hoard enough resources to command 35%+ of the total
> market
> > under proposed policy.
> >
> > >
> > >>> I simply remind you of where this proposal started. It was seeking
> to
> > answer the question "What would have happened in the MS/Nortel deal had
> > not MS justified the transfer to ARIN?"
> > >
> > >> The transfer would not have been recognized in the ARIN database
> absent
> > a court order to the contrary. No such court order has ever been granted
> > and I have no reason to believe that one necessarily would have been
> > granted in this case.
> > >
> > > Absolutely correct, ARIN would not have updated Whois, but Microsoft
> > would own the address rights to blocks listed in Whois as belonging to
> > ancient and defunct prior acquisitions of the defunct Nortel. This is
> not
> > a desirable outcome, IMHO.
> > >
> >
> > What rights? What are these alleged address rights? What do those rights
> > mean?
> >
> > You have no right to tell me that I can't use a number on my network no
> > matter what the ARIN database or anyone else says.
> > You have no right to tell an ISP that you are not paying to route
> packets
> > with those numbers in the destination field that they
> > must route those packets to you.
> > Address rights are, for the most part, a myth for all practical
> purposes.
> >
> > What you have, instead, is a set of ISPs and others that generally
> > cooperate based on a centralized registry of what the
> > community has chosen to recognize as authoritative information on who
> > should be allowed to use particular numbers
> > for a particular purpose. Take away that agreement and the whole system
> > devolves into chaos. The court cannot force
> > changes to that agreement, at least not easily, because it is generally
> > out of scope for the court to make rulings forcing
> > entities that are not parties to a case to take actions in support of
> the
> > case.
> >
> > Let's suppose in the hypothetical situation that you describe, ARIN
> > recognized that the previous address holders were
> > obviously defunct (through bankruptcy) and returned the addresses to the
> > ARIN free pool. Since we're going hypothetical
> > here, instead of using a company name for the address usurper, let's
> call
> > them Brand G.
> >
> > ARIN now issue some of the addresses to Brand L, but, at the time
> informs
> > Brand L that they might face issues with
> > Brand G as a result and explains the history. Brand L is sufficiently
> > desperate for IP addresses that they choose to
> > accept the risk.
> >
> > Brand L takes their whois registration and goes to their ISP and starts
> > advertising these routes. ISP gets a call
> > from Brand G, whom ISP has no business relationship with. ISP can do one
> > of two things:
> >
> > 1. Tell Brand G. to take it up with ARIN, they're not registered in
> > whois.
> > 2. Stop advertising the routes for Brand L.
> >
> > My guess is that it's a bit of a toss up here and depends largely on the
> > relative size and fear factors of
> > pissing off Brand G. vs. Brand L. as to which way said ISP is likely to
> > go.
> >
> > In the case where Brand G gets told to go away, a lawsuit likely ensues
> > where Brand G names ARIN,
> > Brand L, and the ISP as defendants.
> >
> > In the case where Brand L gets screwed, a lawsuit likely ensues where
> > Brand G and the ISP get
> > named as defendants with Brand L as plaintiff.
> >
> > What would happen in either lawsuit is virtually anyone's guess. I think
> > that the probability of Brand G
> > getting injunctive relief protecting their rights in an unrecognized and
> > unregistered transfer may
> > be pretty slim in most possible cases. In the case where the transfer
> was
> > done by the bankruptcy
> > court, they might stand a somewhat better chance, but, even there, it's
> > hard to see where ARIN,
> > the ISP, or Brand L would have any obligation not to engage in
> conflicting
> > use of the addresses
> > under any existing statute.
> >
> > That's the fundamental thing most people seem to miss about the
> internet.
> > It all depends on everyone
> > cooperating about these things. Take out cooperation and the system
> > rapidly devolves into chaos.
> > Nothing takes out cooperation like greed. Hence my desire to keep greed
> as
> > much removed from
> > address policy as possible.
> >
> > Frankly, I think that the market will likely destroy the IPv4 operating
> > environment and lead to its
> > rapid disintegration. I think it may be one of the most traumatic and
> one
> > of the biggest motivators
> > for IPv6 deployment. However, in spite of the fact that I think an
> > unregulated market has great
> > potential to advance the interests of IPv6, I think the damage it would
> do
> > is too great and should
> > be mitigated as much as possible.
> >
> > Again, these thoughts are entirely my own and I alone am responsible for
> > them. I am not a lawyer
> > and nothing above should be construed as legal advice or a legal
> opinion.
> > It is just my observations
> > based on what I have seen and read.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111123/f6ddfb11/attachment.bin>

From farmer at umn.edu  Wed Nov 23 15:42:50 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:42:50 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for
	IPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com>
	<2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com>
	<9111DD93CDA642EFB978C33574517E35@MPC>
	<B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com>
	<85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC>
Message-ID: <4ECD5ACA.9070006@umn.edu>



On 11/23/11 12:12 CST, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Owen, responses inline.
>
>>> Second, it caps needs-free transfers at the size of a /12, which Owen
>>> helpfully points out is just 1/4096th of unicast space. With a cap
>>> like this in place, cornering the market is not feasible and total
>>> potential profits are limited, making this kind of speculation
>>> unsound because the high risk of speculating in this market can not
>>> be outweighed by oversized returns.
>
>> Capping needs-free transfers at a /12 is absurd. That's virtually
>> equivalent to no cap whatsoever. If you want me to consider the
>> needs-free cap meaningful, then, move it to some more rational place
>> like a /22. At /22, I'd still think this was a bad idea, but
>> significantly less damaging than the current proposal would be.
>
> I am open to reviewing that number, I don?t really think there will be
> many large transfers to those who cannot justify them. The number was
> initially suggested by David Farmer and I don't think it absurd, rather
> a good middle which would limit market cornering while allowing most
> transfers to flow smoothly into Whois.

There is no magic in /12 it was just a starting point for a 
conversation.  A /8 seemed way to big to be allowed to be transferred 
without justification, and a /16 seemed to not allow enough additional 
freedom in the market to make such a change worth the effort. The 
midpoint of these two was /12, additionally it approximates 1 Million 
addresses, a nice round number.  I think /12, /13 or /14 all seem like 
reasonable options to me.  I think a /22 is way to small to bother 
eliminating need basis and wouldn't do much to allow the market 
additional room to work.

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From farmer at umn.edu  Wed Nov 23 15:58:34 2011
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:58:34 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements
	forIPv4transfers
In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9F@MAIL1.polartel.local>
References: <CAF18E87.188EB%daniel_alexander@cable.comcast.com><2445F9B9-C5B1-4AF8-A8BC-CF865CCACFFF@delong.com><9111DD93CDA642EF
	B978C33574517E35@MPC><B0A4F7B7-3CCA-4D4F-9133-A88BC76A2CC4@delong.com><85D197594F8A49D8A7F73064E300EB6B@MPC><335F94FC-7975-445F
	-A669-67C1FFBED9AC@delong.com>
	<8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9E@MAIL1.polartel.local>
	<B445FE3772C24B688A5973D382934E08@MPC>
	<8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801172FDE9F@MAIL1.polartel.local>
Message-ID: <4ECD5E7A.8050701@umn.edu>


On 11/23/11 13:22 CST, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> [kjk] Thank you for the clarification Mike.  It will all be a lot easier to
> swallow if it applies to both in and out of region recipients equally.
> If there is to be any inequity then ARIN's scales should tip toward ARIN
> members, not away from them.

Kevin the dust is only starting to settle from 2011-1 and this text is 
more or less the version from late this summer when the AC selected the 
policies to take to the Philly PPM.  This proposal wasn't selected and 
has sat for the last few months, it is now time to dust it off and start 
talking about it again and see if we can get it in shape to take it to 
the spring PPM.  I confident we will incorporate Inter-RIR transfers 
before moving this to draft policy if we get that far.  Are there other 
changes you think should be made to move it to where it would be ready 
to take to the next PPM?

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Nov 25 00:53:01 2011
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:53:01 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201111250553.pAP5r2Fg021021@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 39 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Nov 25 00:53:01 EST 2011
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 17.95% |    7 | 20.81% |    77957 | mike at nationwideinc.com
 20.51% |    8 | 14.63% |    54794 | jcurran at arin.net
 12.82% |    5 | 14.11% |    52843 | owen at delong.com
  5.13% |    2 | 14.38% |    53850 | kkargel at polartel.com
  7.69% |    3 |  6.25% |    23413 | aaronh at bind.com
  5.13% |    2 |  5.68% |    21290 | tvest at eyeconomics.com
  5.13% |    2 |  3.86% |    14451 | scottleibrand at gmail.com
  5.13% |    2 |  3.83% |    14344 | farmer at umn.edu
  5.13% |    2 |  3.81% |    14286 | info at arin.net
  2.56% |    1 |  3.82% |    14308 | dogwallah at gmail.com
  2.56% |    1 |  2.24% |     8405 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net
  2.56% |    1 |  1.86% |     6976 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com
  2.56% |    1 |  1.77% |     6614 | narten at us.ibm.com
  2.56% |    1 |  1.70% |     6365 | bill at herrin.us
  2.56% |    1 |  1.24% |     4630 | lsawyer at gci.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   39 |100.00% |   374526 | Total



From cja at daydream.com  Tue Nov 29 17:52:26 2011
From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:52:26 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Consensus Call:
	draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D74D86836B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D74D86836B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Message-ID: <CAMvf=7Y4A6fP1sCBteEg1La4VdSC3D1e3R3-JnUzt1Hg7X8upg@mail.gmail.com>

This is an update on the shared transition space draft that relates to ARIN
2011-5.

----Cathy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica at juniper.net>
Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
To: IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>


On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix
for Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus
supporting the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft.
Therefore, I will submit the draft to the full IESG for its consideration
at its December 1 teleconference. The draft will be published as a BCP if a
sufficient number of IESG members ballot "Yes" or "No Objection", and if no
IESG member ballots "Discuss".

Because the decision to submit this draft to the full IESG is
controversial, I will explain the decision making process.

The IETF has a precedent for interpreting silence as consent. Typically, if
a last call elicits no response, the draft is brought to the full IESG for
consideration. The October 10 last call regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 evoked only two responses.
One response supported publication of the draft while the other was opposed
to it. The respondent voicing support for the draft offered no rationale.
The respondent objecting offered many editorial comments, but almost no
rationale for blocking the draft once the editorial comments are addressed.

Because the October 10 last call elicited so little response, and because
many community members have privately expressed strong opinions regarding
this draft, I will summarize outstanding issues below. The following are
arguments *against* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request:

- Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6.
It only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918
address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by
the draft.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request
still more special-use address space.
- Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic
of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an
non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been
identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future.

Arguments *supporting* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 assume
that operators will deploy CGNs and will number the interfaces between CGN
and CPE. If the /10 proposed by draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
is not allocated, operators will number from one of the following:

- public address space
- RFC 1918 address space
- squat space

If operators number from public address space, they will deplete an already
scarce resource. If operators number from RFC 1918 space and the same RFC
1918 space is used on the customer premise, some CPE will behave badly. The
consequences of numbering from squat space are determined by the squat
space that is chosen.

In summary, allocation of the /10 will have certain adverse effects upon
the community. However, failure to allocate the /10 will have different
adverse effects on the community. The IESG is being asked to choose the
lesser of two evils.


--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111129/ef8a6849/attachment.htm>