From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 7 00:53:04 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:53:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201212070553.qB75r4X6010383@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 7 00:53:04 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 12651 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 12651 | Total From dave at temk.in Sun Dec 9 14:32:57 2012 From: dave at temk.in (David Temkin) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 14:32:57 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Final Reminder: Call for Presentations: NANOG 57 in Orlando, FL Message-ID: NANOG Community, The North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) will hold their 57th meeting in Orlando, FL on February 4th through the 6th. Of special note, this is the first meeting that will have a fully Monday through Wednesday agenda. Our host, CyrusOne is eagerly awaiting welcoming you to the Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 57 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet. Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. NANOG 57 submissions are welcome at http://pc.nanog.org For further information on what the Program Committee is seeking, please see http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/callforpresentations.html This will also be our first meeting after the 2012 WCIT in early December, and we expect topical and timely presentations regarding the results When considering submitting a presentation, keep these important dates in mind: Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: 10-December-2012 Final Slides Due: 7-January-2013 Draft Program Published: 14-January-2013 Final Agenda Published: 18-January-2013 Please submit your materials to http://pc.nanog.org Looking forward to seeing everyone in Orlando! -Dave Temkin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Mon Dec 10 17:44:27 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:44:27 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> Message-ID: <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Depending on the traditions you follow, the holidays are or very soon will be upon us; Nevertheless, please look at the following text and provide your comments to the AC. BE ADVISED, the AC is likely to consider sending this text to last call at its meeting next week. Please let us know your opinion, even if it is you simply support or not the text as written. Thanks and Happy Holidays. On 11/26/12 15:25 , Chris Grundemann wrote: > I made some updates based on feedback received here, the new text is as follows: > > ----8<----8<---- > Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second > paragraph remains unchanged): > > ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in > the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions: > > * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets > that use the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN > will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. > * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to the > status of the transferred resources. > * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources. > * The transferred resources will be subject to ARIN policies. > * The minimum transfer size is the smaller of the original allocation > size or the applicable minimum allocation size in current policy. > ----8<----8<---- > > Cheers, > ~Chris > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> >>> On 11/19/12, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>>> IOW, I want to avoid extending the more lenient 8.2 provisions to a sale >>>> where someone buys $100,000 worth of IP addresses and $20,000 worth of >>>> hardware and then sells the hardware to $SCRAP_DEALER just to keep the >>>> addresses. >>> >>> IP addresses don't belong to hardware; IP addresses belong to IP >>> interfaces, attached to hardware, in order to provide connectivity to >>> a network node for communicating or offering a service. A change >>> of hardware does not imply that the need for the logical IP interface >>> goes away. If you send a router to a scrap dealer, that doesn't >>> mean all the networks it routed necessarily go away. >>> >> >> The above statement was short-hand to explain my intent, not an absolute >> statement implying that addresses were attached directly to hardware. >> Put it back in context with what I was responding to. >> >>> What about cases, where the acquiring organization finds the hardware >>> _belongs_ with $TRASH_COLLECTION or $SCRAP_DEALER due to the >>> obsolescence of said decrepit hardware, and after acquiring, they >>> will make a non-disruptive reallocation of the hardware used to >>> provide IT services? Probably by re-consolidating on new >>> hardware. >>> >> >> The policy language I proposed would not preclude this. >> >>> That kind of restructuring does not make renumbering reasonable >>> and doesn't belong under 8.3. >> >> Agreed. However, I want to make sure that 8.2 does not get abused to >> back-door 8.3 style transfers by adding hardware to the mix and pretending >> it is an acquisition of a working network. >> >> 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. > > > -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 18:25:35 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:25:35 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: No objections here. As far as I can tell the only substantive change (other than codifying existing practice) is the requirement that "The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources." That seems like a (minor) improvement in policy. -Scott On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Depending on the traditions you follow, the holidays are or very soon will > be upon us; Nevertheless, please look at the following text and provide > your comments to the AC. > > BE ADVISED, the AC is likely to consider sending this text to last call at > its meeting next week. Please let us know your opinion, even if it is you > simply support or not the text as written. > > Thanks and Happy Holidays. > > > On 11/26/12 15:25 , Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> I made some updates based on feedback received here, the new text is as >> follows: >> >> ----8<----8<---- >> Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second >> paragraph remains unchanged): >> >> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in >> the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions: >> >> * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets >> that use the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN >> will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. >> * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to the >> status of the transferred resources. >> * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources. >> * The transferred resources will be subject to ARIN policies. >> * The minimum transfer size is the smaller of the original allocation >> size or the applicable minimum allocation size in current policy. >> ----8<----8<---- >> >> Cheers, >> ~Chris >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >>> >>> On 11/19/12, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> >>>> IOW, I want to avoid extending the more lenient 8.2 provisions to a >>>>> sale >>>>> where someone buys $100,000 worth of IP addresses and $20,000 worth of >>>>> hardware and then sells the hardware to $SCRAP_DEALER just to keep the >>>>> addresses. >>>>> >>>> >>>> IP addresses don't belong to hardware; IP addresses belong to IP >>>> interfaces, attached to hardware, in order to provide connectivity to >>>> a network node for communicating or offering a service. A change >>>> of hardware does not imply that the need for the logical IP interface >>>> goes away. If you send a router to a scrap dealer, that doesn't >>>> mean all the networks it routed necessarily go away. >>>> >>>> >>> The above statement was short-hand to explain my intent, not an absolute >>> statement implying that addresses were attached directly to hardware. >>> Put it back in context with what I was responding to. >>> >>> What about cases, where the acquiring organization finds the hardware >>>> _belongs_ with $TRASH_COLLECTION or $SCRAP_DEALER due to the >>>> obsolescence of said decrepit hardware, and after acquiring, they >>>> will make a non-disruptive reallocation of the hardware used to >>>> provide IT services? Probably by re-consolidating on new >>>> hardware. >>>> >>>> >>> The policy language I proposed would not preclude this. >>> >>> That kind of restructuring does not make renumbering reasonable >>>> and doesn't belong under 8.3. >>>> >>> >>> Agreed. However, I want to make sure that 8.2 does not get abused to >>> back-door 8.3 style transfers by adding hardware to the mix and >>> pretending >>> it is an acquisition of a working network. >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > ==============================**================== > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ==============================**================== > ______________________________**_________________ > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 22:42:02 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:42:02 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > No objections here. As far as I can tell the only substantive change (other > than codifying existing practice) is the requirement that "The new entity > must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources." That seems like a > (minor) improvement in policy. Is there any concern from the community regarding the word "an" in ... must sign *an* RSA ... While any RSA is better than none, I seem to recall a similar wording was interpreted by ARIN in a way that caused some members of the community some consternation (i.e. it allowed a Legacy RSA). Gary From snoble at sonn.com Mon Dec 10 23:27:59 2012 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:27:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: TL;DR I don't agree with forcing people under RSAs especially the latest one just "because". I've been on the other side of the "which version of the RSA" discussion. ARIN refuses to allow you to re-sign or sign a copy of the RSA that applied at the time of the registration/transfer/action unless it is the current RSA. All ARIN really has to do is refuse to accept the RSA. ARIN is a monopoly, if they do not accept a document from you, there is not much you can do. Remember, because of ARINs own mistake (and I very much do thank John for researching and correcting it) I was caught in a circle where I could not update a ASN that I had the right to update, that I paid for every year. Had John not found the issue, there would be over 2000 other organizations caught in the same limbo. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> No objections here. As far as I can tell the only substantive change (other >> than codifying existing practice) is the requirement that "The new entity >> must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources." That seems like a >> (minor) improvement in policy. > > Is there any concern from the community regarding the word "an" in > > ... must sign *an* RSA ... > > While any RSA is better than none, I seem to recall a similar > wording was interpreted by ARIN in a way that caused some > members of the community some consternation (i.e. it allowed > a Legacy RSA). > > Gary > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Dec 10 23:41:19 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:41:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> No objections here. As far as I can tell the only substantive change (other >> than codifying existing practice) is the requirement that "The new entity >> must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources." That seems like a >> (minor) improvement in policy. > > Is there any concern from the community regarding the word "an" in > > ... must sign *an* RSA ... > > While any RSA is better than none, I seem to recall a similar > wording was interpreted by ARIN in a way that caused some > members of the community some consternation (i.e. it allowed > a Legacy RSA). To be clear, the terms and conditions of the LRSA and RSA are now materially the same, except for the reference to the fee schedule contained in each. If there are implications for the policy because of the difference in fees made available to legacy address holders via the LRSA, it is worth discussing here, but note that it will ultimately be a matter for the ARIN Board of Trustees (which has responsibility for establishing the fees and services for ARIN) ARIN has had situations where it was deemed reasonable to proceed with an LRSA rather than the standard RSA for the recipient, due to the resources in question being issued before ARIN's formation and subject to bankruptcy court order. This was before the extensive outreach with respect to transfers, and while is unlikely to recur, to preclude an LRSA could ultimately be very costly to ARIN if such were to happen and we had to engage solely to correct this aspect of an order. I hope this information is helpful to the community in further consideration of the draft policy. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 10:40:59 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:40:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM, John Curran wrote: ... > I hope this information is helpful to the community in further consideration > of the draft policy. Given the clarification, I support the policy as written. Gary From berzins at nucleus.com Tue Dec 11 14:45:18 2012 From: berzins at nucleus.com (Dave Berzins) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:45:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2012-7? Message-ID: <8B7E325C26F5E74798DC2B5456BC8538023E38057C@EXCHANGE.nucleusinc.ca> Hi Guys. I see that ARIN 2012-7 is sitting at "Awaiting Board Review". Can someone tell me when this would be? I've looked online and see member meetings but for the life of me can't spot any information on dates for board meetings. Second to that, assuming it passes the final review, does it come into effect immediately or within X time? Thanks. Dave E. Berzins (berzins at nucleus.com) President, Nucleus Inc. 1835B 10 Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T3C 0K2 Direct: (403) 313-7790 Direct Fax: (403) 313-8440 Phone: (403) 209-0000 Fax: (403) 541-9474 www.nucleus.com Nucleus is ... Everything Internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Dec 11 15:09:57 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:09:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2012-7? In-Reply-To: <8B7E325C26F5E74798DC2B5456BC8538023E38057C@EXCHANGE.nucleusinc.ca> References: <8B7E325C26F5E74798DC2B5456BC8538023E38057C@EXCHANGE.nucleusinc.ca> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C13666D@CHAXCH02.corp.arin.net> On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:45 PM, Dave Berzins > wrote: Hi Guys. I see that ARIN 2012-7 is sitting at ?Awaiting Board Review?. Can someone tell me when this would be? I?ve looked online and see member meetings but for the life of me can?t spot any information on dates for board meetings. Second to that, assuming it passes the final review, does it come into effect immediately or within X time? ARIN's Board next meeting will be meeting in December. The staff assessment for the Draft Policy notes: "It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees." We will try to implement this swiftly after approval, but I cannot provide a better estimate at this time. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marketing at emailvalidationcenter.com Wed Dec 12 06:05:51 2012 From: marketing at emailvalidationcenter.com (Kollys) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:05:51 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 30% OFF plus Free Shipping Message-ID: View this email in web browser. If you no longer wish to receive product offer emails from us, please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60790 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 13 08:49:16 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:49:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22920FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I cannot support this policy. It seems to be ARIN attempting to unilaterally change the terms of a contract or assert control simply because a transfer of existing rights has taken place through a merger or acquisition. If a company acquires another company it should acquire the rights that the existing company has. I see no justification for ARIN seizing upon the transfer as an excuse to change those rights. On process grounds I also think it it bit unseemly for the AC to send this to last call a few days before a new elected AC comes into office. I think it should wait and allow the new crew to deal with it. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 5:44 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 > and 8.3 Transfer Policy > > Depending on the traditions you follow, the holidays are or very soon > will be upon us; Nevertheless, please look at the following text and > provide your comments to the AC. > > BE ADVISED, the AC is likely to consider sending this text to last call > at its meeting next week. Please let us know your opinion, even if it > is you simply support or not the text as written. > > Thanks and Happy Holidays. > > On 11/26/12 15:25 , Chris Grundemann wrote: > > I made some updates based on feedback received here, the new text is > as follows: > > > > ----8<----8<---- > > Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second > > paragraph remains unchanged): > > > > ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in > > the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions: > > > > * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets > > that use the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN > > will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. > > * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to the > > status of the transferred resources. > > * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources. > > * The transferred resources will be subject to ARIN policies. > > * The minimum transfer size is the smaller of the original allocation > > size or the applicable minimum allocation size in current policy. > > ----8<----8<---- > > > > Cheers, > > ~Chris > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > >> On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > >> > >>> On 11/19/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> > >>>> IOW, I want to avoid extending the more lenient 8.2 provisions to a > >>>> sale where someone buys $100,000 worth of IP addresses and $20,000 > >>>> worth of hardware and then sells the hardware to $SCRAP_DEALER just > >>>> to keep the addresses. > >>> > >>> IP addresses don't belong to hardware; IP addresses belong to IP > >>> interfaces, attached to hardware, in order to provide connectivity > to > >>> a network node for communicating or offering a service. A change > >>> of hardware does not imply that the need for the logical IP > interface > >>> goes away. If you send a router to a scrap dealer, that doesn't > >>> mean all the networks it routed necessarily go away. > >>> > >> > >> The above statement was short-hand to explain my intent, not an > >> absolute statement implying that addresses were attached directly to > hardware. > >> Put it back in context with what I was responding to. > >> > >>> What about cases, where the acquiring organization finds the > hardware > >>> _belongs_ with $TRASH_COLLECTION or $SCRAP_DEALER due to the > >>> obsolescence of said decrepit hardware, and after acquiring, they > >>> will make a non-disruptive reallocation of the hardware used to > >>> provide IT services? Probably by re-consolidating on new > >>> hardware. > >>> > >> > >> The policy language I proposed would not preclude this. > >> > >>> That kind of restructuring does not make renumbering reasonable and > >>> doesn't belong under 8.3. > >> > >> Agreed. However, I want to make sure that 8.2 does not get abused to > >> back-door 8.3 style transfers by adding hardware to the mix and > >> pretending it is an acquisition of a working network. > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Dec 13 09:01:09 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:01:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22920FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22920FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C1556FA@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Dec 13, 2012, at 5:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I cannot support this policy. It seems to be ARIN attempting to unilaterally change the terms of a contract or assert control simply because a transfer of existing rights has taken place through a merger or acquisition. If a company acquires another company it should acquire the rights that the existing company has. I see no justification for ARIN seizing upon the transfer as an excuse to change those rights. Milton - Could you elaborate why you feel that the draft policy would result in "ARIN attempting to unilaterally change the terms of a contract or assert control" during a transfer? This might be helpful to others considering this draft policy and its implications. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cgrundemann at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 09:32:53 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:32:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22920FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22920FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Dec 13, 2012 6:50 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > On process grounds I also think it it bit unseemly for the AC to send this to last call a few days before a new elected AC comes into office. I think it should wait and allow the new crew to deal with it. > [CLG] While I respect that view, I cannot agree in the slightest. ARIN holds two public policy meetings each year and under the current policy development process those two meetings are central to the adoption of policy. As such, if we were to stall after every October meeting because there are also elections held, we would become much less effective. There is good reason for only five of the fifteen AC seats to open each year. This provides continuity and allows our work to proceed unhindered. I believe it would actually be a grave disservice to the community if we were to stall the process now. Plus, any policy sent to last call this month will be voted on by the "new elected" AC next month before it can be recommended for adoption, so the "new crew" will indeed get to "deal with it." Which I am looking forward to - welcome to the AC Milton! Cheers, ~Chris my android sent this > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of David Farmer > > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 5:44 PM > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 > > and 8.3 Transfer Policy > > > > Depending on the traditions you follow, the holidays are or very soon > > will be upon us; Nevertheless, please look at the following text and > > provide your comments to the AC. > > > > BE ADVISED, the AC is likely to consider sending this text to last call > > at its meeting next week. Please let us know your opinion, even if it > > is you simply support or not the text as written. > > > > Thanks and Happy Holidays. > > > > On 11/26/12 15:25 , Chris Grundemann wrote: > > > I made some updates based on feedback received here, the new text is > > as follows: > > > > > > ----8<----8<---- > > > Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second > > > paragraph remains unchanged): > > > > > > ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in > > > the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions: > > > > > > * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets > > > that use the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN > > > will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. > > > * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to the > > > status of the transferred resources. > > > * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources. > > > * The transferred resources will be subject to ARIN policies. > > > * The minimum transfer size is the smaller of the original allocation > > > size or the applicable minimum allocation size in current policy. > > > ----8<----8<---- > > > > > > Cheers, > > > ~Chris > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> > > >> On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 11/19/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> IOW, I want to avoid extending the more lenient 8.2 provisions to a > > >>>> sale where someone buys $100,000 worth of IP addresses and $20,000 > > >>>> worth of hardware and then sells the hardware to $SCRAP_DEALER just > > >>>> to keep the addresses. > > >>> > > >>> IP addresses don't belong to hardware; IP addresses belong to IP > > >>> interfaces, attached to hardware, in order to provide connectivity > > to > > >>> a network node for communicating or offering a service. A change > > >>> of hardware does not imply that the need for the logical IP > > interface > > >>> goes away. If you send a router to a scrap dealer, that doesn't > > >>> mean all the networks it routed necessarily go away. > > >>> > > >> > > >> The above statement was short-hand to explain my intent, not an > > >> absolute statement implying that addresses were attached directly to > > hardware. > > >> Put it back in context with what I was responding to. > > >> > > >>> What about cases, where the acquiring organization finds the > > hardware > > >>> _belongs_ with $TRASH_COLLECTION or $SCRAP_DEALER due to the > > >>> obsolescence of said decrepit hardware, and after acquiring, they > > >>> will make a non-disruptive reallocation of the hardware used to > > >>> provide IT services? Probably by re-consolidating on new > > >>> hardware. > > >>> > > >> > > >> The policy language I proposed would not preclude this. > > >> > > >>> That kind of restructuring does not make renumbering reasonable and > > >>> doesn't belong under 8.3. > > >> > > >> Agreed. However, I want to make sure that 8.2 does not get abused to > > >> back-door 8.3 style transfers by adding hardware to the mix and > > >> pretending it is an acquisition of a working network. > > >> > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ================================================ > > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > > Office of Information Technology > > University of Minnesota > > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > > ================================================ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 13 09:41:49 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:41:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22920FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22925D9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Plus, any policy sent to last call this month will be voted on by the "new elected" AC next month before it can be recommended for adoption, so the "new crew" will indeed get to "deal with it." [Milton L Mueller] OK, that satisfies my concerns. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 12:55:19 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:55:19 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> References: <1121119150643.26144B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <0D832823-F81B-4590-BEAF-6D17CAABA0DF@delong.com> <50C665CB.4040706@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Depending on the traditions you follow, the holidays are or very soon will > be upon us; Nevertheless, please look at the following text and provide your > comments to the AC. > > BE ADVISED, the AC is likely to consider sending this text to last call at > its meeting next week. Please let us know your opinion, even if it is you > simply support or not the text as written. > > Thanks and Happy Holidays. > > > On 11/26/12 15:25 , Chris Grundemann wrote: >> >> I made some updates based on feedback received here, the new text is as >> follows: >> >> ----8<----8<---- >> Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second >> paragraph remains unchanged): >> >> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in >> the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions: >> >> * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets >> that use the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN >> will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. >> * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to the >> status of the transferred resources. >> * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources. >> * The transferred resources will be subject to ARIN policies. >> * The minimum transfer size is the smaller of the original allocation >> size or the applicable minimum allocation size in current policy. >> ----8<----8<---- >> >> Cheers, >> ~Chris I have no objections to the revised text, and support sending this to last call. Thanks and best regards, Christoph Blecker From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 14 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201212140553.qBE5r3Jn011167@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 16 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 14 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 6.25% | 1 | 38.45% | 91219 | marketing at emailvalidationcenter.com 18.75% | 3 | 9.17% | 21764 | jcurran at arin.net 12.50% | 2 | 8.39% | 19906 | mueller at syr.edu 12.50% | 2 | 5.04% | 11964 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com 6.25% | 1 | 9.35% | 22183 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 6.25% | 1 | 7.58% | 17981 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 6.25% | 1 | 4.99% | 11845 | dave at temk.in 6.25% | 1 | 4.29% | 10188 | farmer at umn.edu 6.25% | 1 | 4.06% | 9622 | berzins at nucleus.com 6.25% | 1 | 3.21% | 7615 | snoble at sonn.com 6.25% | 1 | 2.92% | 6926 | cblecker at gmail.com 6.25% | 1 | 2.53% | 6010 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 16 |100.00% | 237223 | Total From info at arin.net Thu Dec 20 16:59:09 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:59:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policies Adopted - 2012-5 and 2012-7 Message-ID: <50D38A2D.3050206@arin.net> On 18 December 2012, the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following number policies: ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable These policies will be implemented on 16 January 2013. Draft Policy and Policy 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 21 00:53:03 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:53:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201212210553.qBL5r3fY019849@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 21 00:53:03 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 58.28% | 6682 | narten at us.ibm.com 50.00% | 1 | 41.72% | 4784 | info at arin.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 11466 | Total From info at arin.net Thu Dec 27 14:16:08 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:16:08 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2012 Message-ID: <50DC9E78.60207@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 December 2012 and made decisions about draft policies and proposals. The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be posted separately to last call): ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy The AC is continuing to work on the following: ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement ARIN-prop-182 Update Residential Customer Definition to not exclude wireless as Residential Service ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement 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 info at arin.net Thu Dec 27 14:18:01 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:18:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size Message-ID: <50DC9EE9.3000702@arin.net> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 December 2012 and decided to send the following draft policy to last call: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size The AC revised the text after the ARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting and asked for an updated staff assessment of the revised text. The assessment is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/2012_6_staff_assessment.html Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2012-6 will expire on 15 January 2013. 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-2012-6 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size Date: 27 December 2012 Policy statement: 4.4. Micro-allocation ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations. Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes. ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available. Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from requesting address space under other policies. ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner consistent with community expectations. ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. This limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to gTLD allocations made under previous policy. Rationale: Additional ICANN-sanctioned DNS infrastructure is being added to the Internet and in quantities greater than anticipated when the micro allocation proposal was written and adopted. The original CI pool was created to serve new IXP and new CI requirements. The pending need is estimated to be over 1000 new gTLD range, which may exhaust the current /16 reservation before the ARIN free pool is exhausted. Once the current /16 reservation is exhausted, CI providers would no longer be eligible to receive address space, either via the general free pool or via transfer. The original proposal dealt with this by expanding the reservation to a /15 and allowing CI to draw from the free pool instead of the reservation until it gets down to a /8. The consensus coming out of the Dallas meeting seems to be that this is an inadequate solution. As the new expanded gTLD demand will obliterate any reasonable reservation, leaving no resources for the other IXP and CI demands that the original reservation was intended to serve. It is therefore, not possible to services them both out of a common reservation. In order to ensure continued access to IPv4 number resources by new IXP and DNS operators alike, the AC is modifying the proposal going into last call to allow gTLD operators to continue to qualify for micro allocations from the general free pool or via transfer only, and leaving one /16 reserved for IXP, root, and ccTLD DNS operators. As a result of the close examination of the CI policy brought about by this proposal, the AC has identified a number of issues in the original policy text that should be addressed. However, the AC is intentionally minimizing the overall changes to this proposal as much as possible for last call in keeping with the spirit of the PDP. The AC intends to make future proposals to deal with these other concerns. The current proposal addresses issues of some urgency and we did not want to delay it to another policy cycle as a result. From info at arin.net Thu Dec 27 14:18:21 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:18:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy Message-ID: <50DC9EFD.3010506@arin.net> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 December 2012 and decided to send the following draft policy to last call: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy The AC revised the text after the ARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting and asked for an updated staff assessment of the revised text. The assessment is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/2012_8_staff_assessment.html Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2012-8 will expire on 15 January 2013. 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-2012-8 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy Date: 27 December 2012 Policy statement: Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second paragraph remains unchanged): ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions: * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to the status of the resources to be transferred. * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all resources to be transferred. * The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies. * The minimum transfer size is the smaller of the original allocation size or the applicable minimum allocation size in current policy. Rationale: The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level the bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds requirements which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must be the undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an RSA (and is subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for IPv6. Changes following discussion at the ARIN XXX public policy meeting: 1) Changed the first bullet. This was an area for objections because it did not allow chain of custody transfers, so now instead of saying that the purchased company must be the current registrant holder it simply says that there can not be any dispute as to who the registered holder is. 2) Removed the " such that their continued need is justified" text from the second bullet, this was another area of debate at the meeting and justification is already covered in paragraph 2 of 8.2 (which remains unchanged). 3) Swapped the first two bullets. 4) Added "covering all transferred resources" to the RSA bullet, for clarity. 5) Swapped the third and fourth bullets. 3) Altered the IPv4 minimum allocation to bring it in line with 4.10 resources and any future exceptions. Changes following PPML discussion in November 2012: a) 'used' was changed back to 'use' in the first bullet to prevent a backdoor around specified transfers leveraging asset liquidation. b) The third bullet was shortened for clarity (removed the word 'current' before 'policy') c) The minimum transfer sizes are now pinned to policy rather than hard-set. Timetable for implementation: immediate From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 28 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201212280553.qBS5r29m010777@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 28 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 80.00% | 4 | 81.57% | 26952 | info at arin.net 20.00% | 1 | 18.43% | 6090 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 33042 | Total