From heather.skanks at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 15:32:47 2015
From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:32:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your feedback. It would be useful to the AC and the authors
if you could site the specific language that causes your concern, so that
we can work to improve it.  We would also welcome suggestions for
modifications.

Thanks,
-- Heather
 On Jun 23, 2015 7:00 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5
> > Out of region use
>
> OPPOSED.
>
> This draft calls for ARIN staff to make highly subjective value
> judgments which will, by their nature, vary from individual to
> individual and probably even from an individual's mood to mood. This
> would make a fair and impartial implementation of such a policy
> impossible.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150701/a45f16ea/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Jul  1 16:07:14 2015
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:07:14 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVYg0RCqHOMJk=-pnfBjW7Qz_ZsmZau+LgZsV0yJpjxxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Heather Schiller
<heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback. It would be useful to the AC and the authors if
> you could site the specific language that causes your concern, so that we
> can work to improve it.  We would also welcome suggestions for
> modifications.

Hi Heather,

As near as I can figure, it's the whole darn thing. Pick a sentence,
put it in quotes and ask, "What the heck does that mean?"

For example:

"Demonstrating that the entity raises investment capital from
investors in the ARIN region."

What the heck does that mean? Does it mean that if as a citizen of the
Commonwealth of Virginia I own a single share of ChinaCorp, then
ChinaCorp can register ARIN addresses for use in China? Maybe I don't
have to, it's good enough that the Chinese ambassador residing in D.C.
own a single share.

How are staff supposed to assess whether an organization meets such an
impossibly vague criteria?


Frankly, I think the idea of expansively enumerating the situations in
which addresses may be used outregion is unworkable and should be
abandoned.

If we want addresses to be blithely usable on a global basis, there
are right ways and wrong ways to go about it. This is one of the wrong
ways. A right way would be globally standardizing the address
registration and transfer process, policies and address pools. No more
regionality to IPv4 at any level, just multiple staffs following
identical rules for access to the same assets.

If we want regional policy control, that should and must include
regional use constraints. That means address use outregion only where
such use is strictly incidental to the in-region use. Number both
sides of the New York to London link out of ARIN addresses, but the
London office gets its addresses from RIPE.

Regards.
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>


From hannigan at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 17:43:24 2015
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:43:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>

Opposed.  

We all have already been here and done that. 

The community told the AC and ARIN  to abandon. Not to do over. We already have all of our objections on record including THST we already use resources globally (cdn, content).  

Where are we disconnected? Can you elaborate? Will help us to comprehend.

Best,

Marty


 



> On Jul 1, 2015, at 15:32, Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Thank you for your feedback. It would be useful to the AC and the authors if you could site the specific language that causes your concern, so that we can work to improve it.  We would also welcome suggestions for modifications.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Heather
>> On Jun 23, 2015 7:00 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5
>> > Out of region use
>> 
>> OPPOSED.
>> 
>> This draft calls for ARIN staff to make highly subjective value
>> judgments which will, by their nature, vary from individual to
>> individual and probably even from an individual's mood to mood. This
>> would make a fair and impartial implementation of such a policy
>> impossible.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> --
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150701/a78c4dbe/attachment.htm>

From jlewis at lewis.org  Wed Jul  1 19:36:07 2015
From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:36:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>

I'm in favor of 2015-5, but think it's a little late to be even talking 
about this.  My problem with current policy is ARIN has adopted a highly 
conservative interpretation of vague policy (basically inventing policy 
disallowing out of region use when such a thing is not explicitly in any 
established policy).

There are ARIN members running global networks who have been using ARIN 
resources out of region for many years, only to eventually find out "those 
IPs don't count as 'utilized' depending on exactly how you've allocated 
and routed them."

Given how close ARIN is to run-out, I'm not sure how meaningful passage of 
2015-5 would be...but I'd still like to see more of a connection between 
ARIN's number policies and the actual NRPM (not some narrow interpretation 
of its vagueness).

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Martin  Hannigan wrote:

> Opposed.
>
> We all have already been here and done that.
>
> The community told the AC and ARIN  to abandon. Not to do over. We already have all of our objections on record including THST we already use resources globally (cdn, content).
>
> Where are we disconnected? Can you elaborate? Will help us to comprehend.
>
> Best,
>
> Marty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 15:32, Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Thank you for your feedback. It would be useful to the AC and the authors if you could site the specific language that causes your concern, so that we can work to improve it.  We would also welcome suggestions for modifications.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Heather
>>> On Jun 23, 2015 7:00 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5
>>>> Out of region use
>>>
>>> OPPOSED.
>>>
>>> This draft calls for ARIN staff to make highly subjective value
>>> judgments which will, by their nature, vary from individual to
>>> individual and probably even from an individual's mood to mood. This
>>> would make a fair and impartial implementation of such a policy
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bill Herrin
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
                              |  therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________


From owen at delong.com  Wed Jul  1 19:43:48 2015
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:43:48 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
Message-ID: <B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>

Since this would impact IPv6, ASNs, and IPv4 transfers, I don?t think it?s particularly late.

I agree it?s late for the IPv4 free pool, as that is essentially dead (and hopefully really dead soon), but I think there remains relevance to addressing the policy issues.

Admittedly this is less of an issue for ASNs due to the nature of their usage, but I think it?s still just as relevant for some cases of IPv6.

Owen

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 16:36 , Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm in favor of 2015-5, but think it's a little late to be even talking about this.  My problem with current policy is ARIN has adopted a highly conservative interpretation of vague policy (basically inventing policy disallowing out of region use when such a thing is not explicitly in any established policy).
> 
> There are ARIN members running global networks who have been using ARIN resources out of region for many years, only to eventually find out "those IPs don't count as 'utilized' depending on exactly how you've allocated and routed them."
> 
> Given how close ARIN is to run-out, I'm not sure how meaningful passage of 2015-5 would be...but I'd still like to see more of a connection between ARIN's number policies and the actual NRPM (not some narrow interpretation of its vagueness).
> 
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Martin  Hannigan wrote:
> 
>> Opposed.
>> 
>> We all have already been here and done that.
>> 
>> The community told the AC and ARIN  to abandon. Not to do over. We already have all of our objections on record including THST we already use resources globally (cdn, content).
>> 
>> Where are we disconnected? Can you elaborate? Will help us to comprehend.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Marty
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 15:32, Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your feedback. It would be useful to the AC and the authors if you could site the specific language that causes your concern, so that we can work to improve it.  We would also welcome suggestions for modifications.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -- Heather
>>>> On Jun 23, 2015 7:00 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5
>>>>> Out of region use
>>>> 
>>>> OPPOSED.
>>>> 
>>>> This draft calls for ARIN staff to make highly subjective value
>>>> judgments which will, by their nature, vary from individual to
>>>> individual and probably even from an individual's mood to mood. This
>>>> would make a fair and impartial implementation of such a policy
>>>> impossible.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bill Herrin
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
>                             |  therefore you are
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp <http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp> for PGP public key_________
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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/20150701/65e333b3/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Jul  1 20:18:57 2015
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 20:18:57 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Admittedly this is less of an issue for ASNs due to the nature of their
> usage, but I think it?s still just as relevant for some cases of IPv6.

Howdy,

Applying regional use constraints to AS numbers makes exactly zero
sense to me.  If anyone feels there's a need to spell this out, please
write a policy to that effect and I doubt you'll see any opposition to
its passage.

The different types of number resources aren't the same. Policies
which make sense for one type don't necessarily make sense for
another.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>


From mysidia at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 20:37:11 2015
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:37:11 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:18 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> Applying regional use constraints to AS numbers makes exactly zero
> sense to me.  If anyone feels there's a need to spell this out, please

As of now.....  there is really no pool of scarce IPv4  resources to
distribute according to local policies...

The purpose of having multiple RIRs in the first place, instead of one
global GIR    that can  allocate, register, transfer resources in any
region,   is greatly diminished.

I would suggest that ARIN perhaps begin to transform itself into a
global registry and drop the  "service region" idea   and   the
"region specific usage ideas"  for all resources and services.

Applying regional use constraints to *ANY* number resources  no longer
makes any sense;   it barely did for IPv4,  and  IPv6 is not scarce.


The only remaining utility would be  hierarchical distribution of IPv6
resources according to region,  to facilitate filtering.

It is questionable whether that will in fact be useful in practice.


I would suggest that Out of Region use be fully allowed for all
resources,  with disclosure of the caveat that  optimal routing might
be more limited for out of region usage.

The only hard constraint should be that the resource holder must at
all times provide and maintain a contact or agent with physical
mailing address in one of the countries served by ARIN,  unless,  or
until such time as there is a global registry.

Originally,  there was a concern that some orgs might "game" the RIR
system, by    shopping different regions  to obtain scarce IPv4
resources they might not be eligible for otherwise.

It's hard to imagine how it could be a concern now


> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
--
-JH


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul  1 20:42:51 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:42:51 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
Message-ID: <4E6B0102-A0A3-45B2-A2BE-718E4CAEB07A@corp.arin.net>

On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:36 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm in favor of 2015-5, but think it's a little late to be even talking about this.  My problem with current policy is ARIN has adopted a highly conservative interpretation of vague policy (basically inventing policy disallowing out of region use when such a thing is not explicitly in any established policy).

Actually, the fact that ARIN has a service region is quite clear.  The implications of having 
a service region is that organizations that have no operational presence in the region and 
request resources not for use in the region are denied.   This was called out to the community 
in April 2013 Barbados Policy Experience Report, so that the community could discuss and 
change policy if so desired.

> There are ARIN members running global networks who have been using ARIN resources out of region for many years, only to eventually find out "those IPs don't count as 'utilized' depending on exactly how you've allocated and routed them.?

Actually, the policy experience report was not the result of any issues or concerns raised
by any global organization seeking to obtain or use IP address space from ARIN - it was 
the result of a number of organizations seeking address space that had no operational 
presence in the region.

> Given how close ARIN is to run-out, I'm not sure how meaningful passage of 2015-5 would be...but I'd still like to see more of a connection between ARIN's number policies and the actual NRPM (not some narrow interpretation of its vagueness).

The existing policy text is sufficient for current registry administration, but clarity is always
helpful (and why the staff provides policy experience reports at the meetings)  At this point, 
it has been more than two years since the Barbados experience report without consensus 
for a change - if the community wants to provide additional clarity, that would be still be 
welcome (even if it does not get much use in light of the depletion of the IPv4 free pool.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul  1 20:56:56 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:56:56 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7ADCC452-6431-4A00-8A2D-011D46FB2685@corp.arin.net>

On Jul 1, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com<mailto:mysidia at gmail.com>> wrote:
...
The purpose of having multiple RIRs in the first place, instead of one
global GIR    that can  allocate, register, transfer resources in any
region,   is greatly diminished.

Regional Internet registries were established predominantly for distribution
the administration of the Internet number registry system, i.e. not as a way
of managing regional pools of resources, but as a way of providing access
to the global pool of resources via distributed regional locations.  You can
read more about these beginnings in RFC 1174 'IAB Recommended Policy
on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy
Change to Internet "Connected? Status?.

The runout of the regional free pool does not change the reasoning behind
why regional Internet registries help with administration; i.e. providing local
hours and language support, etc.   It does argue that regional registries may
not have reduced need for exclusive service regions (as described in ICANN
ICP-2) -

"Each region should be served by a single RIR, established under one management and in one location. The establishment of multiple RIRs in one region is likely to lead to:

? fragmentation of address space allocated to the region;
? difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs;
? confusion for the community within the region.?

If RIRs do not have to worry about fragmentation during new issuance,
than the first of the bullets above becomes less of any issue.

I would suggest that ARIN perhaps begin to transform itself into a
global registry and drop the  "service region" idea   and   the
"region specific usage ideas"  for all resources and services.

?ARIN transform itself? is probably better said as ?The ARIN community
should perhaps discuss the need for the RIR system structure to evolve,
and discussion next steps in this evolution.?, i.e. ARIN staff cannot lead
such discussions; it it up to the global numbers community to discuss and
build consensus on how to best evolve the system.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150702/8a0c00a5/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jul  3 11:34:07 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 15:34:07 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Jimmy
Comments inline
I agree with many of your arguments, especially this one:

> -----Original Message-----
> As of now.....  there is really no pool of scarce IPv4  resources to
> distribute according to local policies...
> The purpose of having multiple RIRs in the first place, instead of one
> global GIR    that can  allocate, register, transfer resources in any
> region,   is greatly diminished.

> I would suggest that Out of Region use be fully allowed for all
> resources,  with disclosure of the caveat that  optimal routing might be
> more limited for out of region usage.
> 
> The only hard constraint should be that the resource holder must at all
> times provide and maintain a contact or agent with physical mailing
> address in one of the countries served by ARIN,  unless,  or until such
> time as there is a global registry.

I would note that the current version of "out of region use" allowance (2015-5) is designed to restrict out of region use far beyond these constraints. It requires companies to meet criteria that are, in effect, a jurisdictional nexus test. This was added to the policy because a) of concerns about gaming access to the free pool, a concern that is no longer salient; and b) objections from law enforcement agencies who would like to align number resources with jurisdiction. 

Although it might be possible for these provisions to mitigate that kind of opposition, the current policy is a step backwards rather than forwards in terms of actually allowing out of region use. I would be interested in hearing from community members whether they think the increasingly formalized "jurisdictionalization" of the number space fostered by 2015-5 is worth whatever gains might be obtained by formally approving out of region use for those who qualify

--MM


From alh-ietf at tndh.net  Fri Jul  3 14:29:17 2015
From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:29:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Jimmy
> Comments inline
> I agree with many of your arguments, especially this one:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > As of now.....  there is really no pool of scarce IPv4  resources to
> > distribute according to local policies...
> > The purpose of having multiple RIRs in the first place, instead of one
> > global GIR    that can  allocate, register, transfer resources in any
> > region,   is greatly diminished.
> 
> > I would suggest that Out of Region use be fully allowed for all
> > resources,  with disclosure of the caveat that  optimal routing might
> > be more limited for out of region usage.
> >
> > The only hard constraint should be that the resource holder must at
> > all times provide and maintain a contact or agent with physical
> > mailing address in one of the countries served by ARIN,  unless,  or
> > until such time as there is a global registry.
> 
> I would note that the current version of "out of region use" allowance
(2015-
> 5) is designed to restrict out of region use far beyond these constraints.
It
> requires companies to meet criteria that are, in effect, a jurisdictional
nexus
> test. This was added to the policy because a) of concerns about gaming
> access to the free pool, a concern that is no longer salient; and b)
objections
> from law enforcement agencies who would like to align number resources
> with jurisdiction.
> 
> Although it might be possible for these provisions to mitigate that kind
of
> opposition, the current policy is a step backwards rather than forwards in
> terms of actually allowing out of region use. I would be interested in
> hearing from community members whether they think the increasingly
> formalized "jurisdictionalization" of the number space fostered by 2015-5
is
> worth whatever gains might be obtained by formally approving out of
> region use for those who qualify
> 
> --MM

It really needs to be taken a step further than that though, in that the
real question is whether the implied alignment with jurisdiction is *ANY*
different than nationally aligned PSTN numbering? If someone believes it is,
they need to be very explicit about why geographic alignment of addresses is
now a good thing, when it has always been fought against in the past
(https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr-02.txt & others
from the ITU on national alignments).

The entirety of 2015-5 is misguided in that it starts from the assumption
that the resources are ARIN property to begin with, then assumes that the
registrant is engaged in a business activity. As far as I know, ARIN is a
registration facilitator for a set of global resources, and one could argue
that if NASA wanted to use some for communication between here and Mars,
that would still qualify as valid and 'out of region'. The entirety of the
current language needs to  be scrapped, and start from the perspective that
it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's
role is simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and
having local language support. Any language that implies that there is a
limitation to use needs to be removed, or an explanation as to why that
restriction is any different than nationally aligned allocations needs to be
added.

Tony







From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Jul  3 15:05:11 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 19:05:11 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
Message-ID: <FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>

On Jul 3, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net<mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net>> wrote:
The entirety of 2015-5 is misguided in that it starts from the assumption
that the resources are ARIN property to begin with, then assumes that the
registrant is engaged in a business activity.

Tony -

   That?s not a correct characterization - Internet number resources are global
   in scope, but often administrated by entities that only have a specific service
   region or scope of services.   ARIN has a defined service region, and it is a
   valid question what defines an entity (legal presence, operational nexus, etc.)
   for purposes of who ARIN provides services to...

As far as I know, ARIN is a
registration facilitator for a set of global resources, and one could argue
that if NASA wanted to use some for communication between here and Mars,
that would still qualify as valid and 'out of region?.

   It would - if NASA was the requester, there?d unlikely to be any issue?

   If the request came entirely from the other end, we presently would not
   provide services due to their lack of a meaningful legal presence in the
   region.

The entirety of the
current language needs to  be scrapped, and start from the perspective that
it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's
role is simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and
having local language support.

  Even under such a definition, we?d like refer the requesters from Mars to their
  service provider for their number resource needs, as their time zone is either
  formally undefined or not be reasonably local depending on one?s perspective.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150703/a8d2d742/attachment.htm>

From alh-ietf at tndh.net  Fri Jul  3 18:04:26 2015
From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 15:04:26 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <0b9f01d0b5dc$3a608120$af218360$@tndh.net>

John Curran wrote:
On Jul 3, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
The entirety of 2015-5 is misguided in that it starts from the assumption
that the resources are ARIN property to begin with, then assumes that the
registrant is engaged in a business activity. 

Tony - 
 
   That?s not a correct characterization - Internet number resources are global
   in scope, but often administrated by entities that only have a specific service
   region or scope of services.   ARIN has a defined service region, and it is a
   valid question what defines an entity (legal presence, operational nexus, etc.)
   for purposes of who ARIN provides services to... 

[TH] I believe the rest of what I said and this paragraph are in violent agreement, but defining who ARIN provides service to is not the point of this proposed text; by content or title. This document is trying to scope where resources get used, not who is allowed to do business with ARIN. 


As far as I know, ARIN is a
registration facilitator for a set of global resources, and one could argue
that if NASA wanted to use some for communication between here and Mars,
that would still qualify as valid and 'out of region?. 

   It would - if NASA was the requester, there?d unlikely to be any issue?

   If the request came entirely from the other end, we presently would not 
   provide services due to their lack of a meaningful legal presence in the 
   region.

[TH] So does ARIN have an expansion plan, or will the NRO need to allow for another RIR?  ... ;)

The entirety of the
current language needs to  be scrapped, and start from the perspective that
it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's
role is simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and
having local language support. 

  Even under such a definition, we?d like refer the requesters from Mars to their 
  service provider for their number resource needs, as their time zone is either
  formally undefined or not be reasonably local depending on one?s perspective.

[TH]  I can certainly understand wanting to have clarity (legal or otherwise) about who is allowed to be a customer, but as I read it, that is not what this proposal is about. If the requesting ISP from Mars didn't have, or couldn't do business with their local RIR for some reason, it would be useful to have a policy that allowed at least one of the RIR's to provide service. In any case, once the resources were allocated and registered, where they are used is outside the scope of the registrar's jurisdiction, as they were and continue to be a global (universal) resource. All attempts to restrict region of use by policy, assert 'property rights' which never existed in the first place. At the end of the day, allowing ill-thought-out policy adjustments to 'manage' the IPv4 address pool will do nothing except endanger the ability to properly manage the IPv6 pool. All IPv4 policy changes should be limited to recognizing that the free-pool is exhausted, and otherwise stop.

Tony

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From matthew at matthew.at  Fri Jul  3 18:23:55 2015
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:23:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <55970B7B.1090303@matthew.at>

On 7/3/2015 12:05 PM, John Curran wrote:
>    It would - if NASA was the requester, there?d unlikely to be any 
> issue?
>
>    If the request came entirely from the other end, we presently would 
> not
>    provide services due to their lack of a meaningful legal presence 
> in the
>    region.
>

John,

If I request (or transfer) a /22 and launch every piece of gear that the 
/22 is used on to Mars, and I come back for another /22 (request or 
transfer), can I count the first /22 as "utilized" even though it isn't 
being used in-region, or will I be denied because my first /22 isn't 
in-use in-region?

Matthew Kaufman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150703/a44aa575/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Jul  4 08:40:28 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 12:40:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <0b9f01d0b5dc$3a608120$af218360$@tndh.net>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>
	<0b9f01d0b5dc$3a608120$af218360$@tndh.net>
Message-ID: <B835191A-51D1-4F10-A918-5560521A82B4@arin.net>

On Jul 3, 2015, at 6:04 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net<mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net>> wrote:

[TH] I believe the rest of what I said and this paragraph are in violent agreement, but defining who ARIN provides service to is not the point of this proposed text; by content or title. This document is trying to scope where resources get used, not who is allowed to do business with ARIN.

There?s fairly long history regarding the ?out of region? proposals, and that makes it important
to consider this proposal in context.  As I noted, the policy proposals have been all striving to
provide greater clarity on whom ARIN serves and under what (if any) conditions.  Note that the
condition that the party indicate that they?ll make some use of the resources in region (effectively,
that they will route the aggregate in region) is part of existing practice.  See the Policy Experience
report <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf>
for more details.

So, you are correct in that the proposal is "trying to scope where resources get used? but that is
solely because the existing practice asks requestors to indicate that they will use the resources
in region as noted above.   Depending on the community?s wish,  this requirement may be clarified,
strengthened, or dropped altogether.

[TH]  I can certainly understand wanting to have clarity (legal or otherwise) about who is allowed to be a customer, but as I read it, that is not what this proposal is about. If the requesting ISP from Mars didn't have, or couldn't do business with their local RIR for some reason, it would be useful to have a policy that allowed at least one of the RIR's to provide service.

If the had a legal presence in ARIN?s service region, and indicated that they were going to route the
resources in region, we could satisfy their request (although I do hope that they are requesting IPv6
resources, since we seem to be a little dry on IPV4 at present?)  We have many multinationals
organizations who have IPv4 and IPv6 resources from ARIN and who use them for their global
networks; there?s no reason that we can?t serve interplanetary organizations under the present
policy, so long as they have a legal presence and intend to use the resources in region...

In any case, once the resources were allocated and registered, where they are used is outside
the scope of the registrar's jurisdiction, as they were and continue to be a global (universal)
resource.

Correct.  Once issued, actual usage is entirely up to the resource holder.

At the end of the day, allowing ill-thought-out policy adjustments to 'manage' the IPv4 address
pool will do nothing except endanger the ability to properly manage the IPv6 pool. All IPv4 policy
changes should be limited to recognizing that the free-pool is exhausted, and otherwise stop.

Tony - your admonishment is taken in good spirit, but you should observe that there is a bit
of existing policy and practice that has accumulated over time with respect to IPv4 resource
administration.  Some of this policy is ?linked?, e.g. it is quite possible today that policy that
was designed for proper allocation of new IPv4 resources from the free pool will be applicable
in some manner to processing a transfer request for IPv4 today, despite free pool runout?
Ergo, there are likely to still be quite a few policy proposals to change IPv4 policy, and will be
particularly important to consider if they improve administration of number resources compared
to the present situation rather than considering them in isolation.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150704/1caf9eb3/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Jul  4 08:59:36 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 12:59:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <55970B7B.1090303@matthew.at>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<FAE462DA-2AB4-432F-BD8F-66AFFB36CE2B@corp.arin.net>
	<55970B7B.1090303@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <87A548FC-EBE1-4DAD-8B70-4214F7330915@corp.arin.net>

On Jul 3, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at<mailto:matthew at matthew.at>> wrote:

If I request (or transfer) a /22 and launch every piece of gear that the /22 is used on to Mars, and I come back for another /22 (request or transfer), can I count the first /22 as "utilized" even though it isn't being used in-region, or will I be denied because my first /22 isn't in-use in-region?

Matthew -

It?s utilized, but the processing of the request depends on whether it is an end-user
or ISP request <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-October/027405.html>
You haven?t referenced ?customers? in the above, so it?s not clear which policy you?d
be applying for additional resources under - I?d note that ISP customer growth that
is outside of region would not be considered for sizing any additional allocation...
(how relevant or meaningful that is given a depleted regional IPv4 free pool is an
excellent question.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150704/e98fb093/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Jul  6 12:08:47 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:08:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
Message-ID: <f39e97c6b6c0498c9571504300006105@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> start from the perspective that
> it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's role is
> simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and having
> local language support. Any language that implies that there is a limitation
> to use needs to be removed, or an explanation as to why that restriction is
> any different than nationally aligned allocations needs to be added.

Tony:
That kind of language/approach is how I intended to follow up on the failure of the old Out of Region Use proposal.
Such a proposal should probably be conceived as a global policy rather than an ARIN policy, however. 
Unfortunately due to a number of things I haven't had time to develop it. If you'd like to put one together I'd welcome it. 

--MM


From bill at herrin.us  Mon Jul  6 12:41:55 2015
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:41:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <f39e97c6b6c0498c9571504300006105@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<f39e97c6b6c0498c9571504300006105@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU9Ek0uKuBSC5dE1qKV9aa73y7QwYbXBUKUOOwPSKasBg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> start from the perspective that
>> it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's role is
>> simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and having
>> local language support. Any language that implies that there is a limitation
>> to use needs to be removed, or an explanation as to why that restriction is
>> any different than nationally aligned allocations needs to be added.
>
> That kind of language/approach is how I intended to follow up on the failure of the old Out of Region Use proposal.
> Such a proposal should probably be conceived as a global policy rather than an ARIN policy, however.

Yes, a global policy. No single region alone has the right. And a very
carefully conceived policy at that, lest the subregistries in each
region subvert it in various anticompetitive ways.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Jul  7 08:37:28 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:37:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU9Ek0uKuBSC5dE1qKV9aa73y7QwYbXBUKUOOwPSKasBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<f39e97c6b6c0498c9571504300006105@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<CAP-guGU9Ek0uKuBSC5dE1qKV9aa73y7QwYbXBUKUOOwPSKasBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B943A614-F2A3-4B99-8C2E-41EB687CB718@corp.arin.net>

On Jul 6, 2015, at 12:41 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
start from the perspective that
it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's role is
simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and having
local language support. Any language that implies that there is a limitation
to use needs to be removed, or an explanation as to why that restriction is
any different than nationally aligned allocations needs to be added.

That kind of language/approach is how I intended to follow up on the failure of the old Out of Region Use proposal.
Such a proposal should probably be conceived as a global policy rather than an ARIN policy, however.

Yes, a global policy. No single region alone has the right. And a very
carefully conceived policy at that, lest the subregistries in each
region subvert it in various anticompetitive ways.

Bill -

In general, the Internet numbers community has used the term ?global policy? to refer to policy
that is used by IANA in administration of the global unicast number resource free pools, and
has used the term ?globally coordinated policy? to refer to policy that was developed with the
intent of global scope, but is ultimately adopted by each RIR community for use during the
administration of their respective regional Internet number registry.

In this case, it may not matter which term you use, as the policy that you seek to establish may
be more fundamental  in nature, i.e. related to requirements presently embedded within ICANN
Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en>
ICP-2 is likely long overdue for a refresh at this point, and if there were a group of brave souls
who wished to take that on (in conjunction with the ASO AC), we might be able to achieve a
framework more suitable for the years that lie ahead...

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150707/820e0852/attachment.htm>

From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Jul 10 00:53:02 2015
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:53:02 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201507100453.t6A4r2jh025750@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 10 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Jul 10 00:53:02 EDT 2015
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 40.00% |    4 | 57.04% |    64711 | jcurran at arin.net
 20.00% |    2 | 16.50% |    18723 | alh-ietf at tndh.net
 20.00% |    2 | 13.36% |    15155 | mueller at syr.edu
 10.00% |    1 |  6.95% |     7886 | matthew at matthew.at
 10.00% |    1 |  6.15% |     6972 | bill at herrin.us
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   10 |100.00% |   113447 | Total



From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jul 12 15:16:06 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:16:06 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
In-Reply-To: <B943A614-F2A3-4B99-8C2E-41EB687CB718@corp.arin.net>
References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVFHEmLH1ZKAiNky1O3y_8Ux60A1b0YvzaWn-1oc8vjAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADricwonbkuqv33ZvxOU58ewoo5kA9fsPU95KS3hkQzQyCb2uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7D8775F6-CE1B-4C59-BF15-FD231768E279@gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.1507011925300.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
	<B5ECB7AE-EB3D-49CF-984C-A77ACD7BDB32@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGVrjxpXoAd_YnS-+7mDm83U37jeRKXfUtKxxyqxJJ2_gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbVeeRJMHcKCtM2OcQYMahQo3wxpiBSE5HBOC5ptMWOT7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1148daf3979948048e57825d0a19e1c4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<0b9801d0b5be$2b993920$82cbab60$@tndh.net>
	<f39e97c6b6c0498c9571504300006105@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<CAP-guGU9Ek0uKuBSC5dE1qKV9aa73y7QwYbXBUKUOOwPSKasBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B943A614-F2A3-4B99-8C2E-41EB687CB718@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <d60825f5e4f94144a3cb7f8252c94b50@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]

ICP-2 is likely long overdue for a refresh at this point, and if there were a group of brave souls
who wished to take that on (in conjunction with the ASO AC), we might be able to achieve a
framework more suitable for the years that lie ahead...

MM: Amen to that.  I am a brave soul but the combination of IANA transition and move to a new institution are holding me back from taking the lead at this time. Other brave souls welcome?

--MM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150712/608cbb55/attachment.htm>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Mon Jul 13 11:31:09 2015
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:31:09 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
	End-Users
Message-ID: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>

The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I have 
drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are posting the 
ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.  This draft 
has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at this point.  I 
believed having initial feedback from the community before submitting 
would be a valuable addition before going into the formal process.

You comments are welcome.

Thanks,
Andrew


====

Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0

1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

4.    Problem Statement:

End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment 
records in the number resource database.

Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions 
which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy by 
allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.

The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow the 
creation of additional records.
-    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location 
within the database which is used by organizations creating geo-location 
by IP address databases)
-    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a 
portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
-    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts 
with other organizations which are operating networks under agreements 
with the registrant, this allows the top-level organizations to 
accurately specify the organization operating the network in the number 
resource database)
-    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large 
networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse 
contact information)


5.    Policy statement:

Create new section 4.3.x

End-user organizations which have an active registration services 
agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the 
number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines 
outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.

6.    Comments:
     a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
     b.    Anything else:

It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the 
distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the 
ability for an organization to create reassignment records.

This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it 
impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.

Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:


A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those 
who wish to use it

This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation 
process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be 
accommodated in budget and the community supports

B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information in 
certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage assertion credibly

This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through the 
policy development process.

C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category

This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or 
consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.


====


From ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me  Tue Jul 14 11:08:24 2015
From: ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me (Gary T. Giesen)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:08:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
	IPv4	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
Message-ID: <00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>

Andrew,

Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.

Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.

Cheers,

GTG 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-
> Users
> 
> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I have drafted
> the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are posting the ideas and
> proposal here to PPML for community discussion.  This draft has not been
> submitted formally to the PDP process at this point.  I believed having initial
> feedback from the community before submitting would be a valuable
> addition before going into the formal process.
> 
> You comments are welcome.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew
> 
> 
> ====
> 
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
> 
> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
> 
> 4.    Problem Statement:
> 
> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
> records in the number resource database.
> 
> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions which
> could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy by allowing
> organizations to add additional details in the database.
> 
> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow the
> creation of additional records.
> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
> within the database which is used by organizations creating geo-location by
> IP address databases)
> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
> with other organizations which are operating networks under agreements
> with the registrant, this allows the top-level organizations to accurately
> specify the organization operating the network in the number resource
> database)
> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse contact
> information)
> 
> 
> 5.    Policy statement:
> 
> Create new section 4.3.x
> 
> End-user organizations which have an active registration services agreement
> shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the number resource
> database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines outlined in section 4.2.3
> when creating reassignment records.
> 
> 6.    Comments:
>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>      b.    Anything else:
> 
> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the distinctions in
> the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the ability for an
> organization to create reassignment records.
> 
> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it impacts
> number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
> 
> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
> 
> 
> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
> who wish to use it
> 
> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation process,
> so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be accommodated in
> budget and the community supports
> 
> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information in
> certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage assertion credibly
> 
> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through the
> policy development process.
> 
> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
> 
> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or consultation
> to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
> 
> 
> ====
> _______________________________________________
> 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 andrew.dul at quark.net  Tue Jul 14 15:11:41 2015
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:11:41 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
 End-Users
In-Reply-To: <00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
Message-ID: <55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>

The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment
records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea has
an impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add reassignment
records traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and
end-users.

I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users
have any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted. 

I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this
change idea. 

The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy
changes the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one
might expect that the fee levels might change for organizations which
choose to take advantage of the additional functionality.

Andrew

On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.
>
> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> GTG 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-
>> Users
>>
>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I have drafted
>> the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are posting the ideas and
>> proposal here to PPML for community discussion.  This draft has not been
>> submitted formally to the PDP process at this point.  I believed having initial
>> feedback from the community before submitting would be a valuable
>> addition before going into the formal process.
>>
>> You comments are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>
>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>
>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>>
>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
>> records in the number resource database.
>>
>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions which
>> could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy by allowing
>> organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>
>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow the
>> creation of additional records.
>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
>> within the database which is used by organizations creating geo-location by
>> IP address databases)
>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
>> with other organizations which are operating networks under agreements
>> with the registrant, this allows the top-level organizations to accurately
>> specify the organization operating the network in the number resource
>> database)
>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse contact
>> information)
>>
>>
>> 5.    Policy statement:
>>
>> Create new section 4.3.x
>>
>> End-user organizations which have an active registration services agreement
>> shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the number resource
>> database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines outlined in section 4.2.3
>> when creating reassignment records.
>>
>> 6.    Comments:
>>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>      b.    Anything else:
>>
>> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the distinctions in
>> the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the ability for an
>> organization to create reassignment records.
>>
>> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it impacts
>> number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>>
>> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
>>
>>
>> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
>> who wish to use it
>>
>> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation process,
>> so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be accommodated in
>> budget and the community supports
>>
>> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information in
>> certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage assertion credibly
>>
>> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through the
>> policy development process.
>>
>> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>>
>> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or consultation
>> to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
>>
>>
>> ====
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 tknow.com  Tue Jul 14 15:59:16 2015
From: bill at tknow.com (Bill Buhler)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:59:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
 End-Users
In-Reply-To: <55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
Message-ID: <7817ea505a634ab7bd29303874903990@TK-Ex13.ad.tknow.com>

As a IPv4 end user I can understand why some would want this ability, but we have no desire to do such. What if instead policy would allow end users to either elect to be treated as a ISP, or pay a fee to have access to SWIP? This would be similar to how voting rights are allocated now.  BTW one right I would love to have by default would be a vote without paying an additional fee, but that is of course another topic.

Best regards,

Bill Buhler
TeKnowledgy, Inc. | Curing IT headaches since 2009
675 East 2100 South, Suite 110???????? 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
385-202-7100 office
385-202-7101 direct / mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea has an impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add reassignment records traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and end-users.

I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users have any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted. 

I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this change idea. 

The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy changes the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one might expect that the fee levels might change for organizations which choose to take advantage of the additional functionality.

Andrew

On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.
>
> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> GTG
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
>> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for 
>> IPv4 End- Users
>>
>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I 
>> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are 
>> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.  
>> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at this 
>> point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community before 
>> submitting would be a valuable addition before going into the formal process.
>>
>> You comments are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>
>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>
>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>>
>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment 
>> records in the number resource database.
>>
>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions 
>> which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy 
>> by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>
>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow 
>> the creation of additional records.
>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
>> within the database which is used by organizations creating 
>> geo-location by IP address databases)
>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
>> with other organizations which are operating networks under 
>> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level 
>> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the 
>> network in the number resource
>> database)
>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse 
>> contact
>> information)
>>
>>
>> 5.    Policy statement:
>>
>> Create new section 4.3.x
>>
>> End-user organizations which have an active registration services 
>> agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the 
>> number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines 
>> outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.
>>
>> 6.    Comments:
>>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>      b.    Anything else:
>>
>> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the 
>> distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the 
>> ability for an organization to create reassignment records.
>>
>> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it 
>> impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>>
>> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
>>
>>
>> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
>> who wish to use it
>>
>> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation 
>> process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be 
>> accommodated in budget and the community supports
>>
>> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information 
>> in certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage 
>> assertion credibly
>>
>> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through 
>> the policy development process.
>>
>> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>>
>> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or 
>> consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
>>
>>
>> ====
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 athompso at athompso.net  Tue Jul 14 16:00:04 2015
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:00:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records
	for	IPv4	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
Message-ID: <5CE2B163-7B1B-4AB8-BC06-8694E310C29E@athompso.net>

"... parents own a controlling share" language would cause me to argue against it.
There are other entities using /28s inside my /24 that I'd like to SWIP just to avoid the abuse@ notifications (one of them has generated a few already!), but although there's a good technical and contractual justification for giving those entities their own distinct subnets, they have nothing more than a contractual relationship with me.  Yet I'm still not an ISP as far as I'm concerned.

At the moment, because I'm an "end-user", I cannot update the registry with factually-correct data.  I would hope that the original proposal allows for scenarios like mine.  I'm absolutely certain, being personally aware of dozens of similar situations, that there are massive amounts of "stealth" delegations happening under ARIN's radar.

-Adam


On July 14, 2015 10:08:24 AM CDT, "Gary T. Giesen" <ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me> wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more
>End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see
>end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs
>increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP
>(which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two
>right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be
>lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system
>by applying as end-users.
>
>Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications
>in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to
>SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees)
>and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only
>organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I
>would support this.
>
>Cheers,
>
>GTG 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>On
>> Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
>IPv4 End-
>> Users
>> 
>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I
>have drafted
>> the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are posting the
>ideas and
>> proposal here to PPML for community discussion.  This draft has not
>been
>> submitted formally to the PDP process at this point.  I believed
>having initial
>> feedback from the community before submitting would be a valuable
>> addition before going into the formal process.
>> 
>> You comments are welcome.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>> 
>> 
>> ====
>> 
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>> 
>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>> 
>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>> 
>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
>> records in the number resource database.
>> 
>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions
>which
>> could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy by
>allowing
>> organizations to add additional details in the database.
>> 
>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow
>the
>> creation of additional records.
>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different
>location
>> within the database which is used by organizations creating
>geo-location by
>> IP address databases)
>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have
>contracts
>> with other organizations which are operating networks under
>agreements
>> with the registrant, this allows the top-level organizations to
>accurately
>> specify the organization operating the network in the number resource
>> database)
>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate
>large
>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse
>contact
>> information)
>> 
>> 
>> 5.    Policy statement:
>> 
>> Create new section 4.3.x
>> 
>> End-user organizations which have an active registration services
>agreement
>> shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the number
>resource
>> database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines outlined in section
>4.2.3
>> when creating reassignment records.
>> 
>> 6.    Comments:
>>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>      b.    Anything else:
>> 
>> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the
>distinctions in
>> the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the ability for an
>> organization to create reassignment records.
>> 
>> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it
>impacts
>> number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>> 
>> Below we have noted the three areas and the different
>responsibilities:
>> 
>> 
>> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for
>those
>> who wish to use it
>> 
>> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation
>process,
>> so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be accommodated
>in
>> budget and the community supports
>> 
>> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information
>in
>> certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage assertion
>credibly
>> 
>> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through
>the
>> policy development process.
>> 
>> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>> 
>> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or
>consultation
>> to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
>> 
>> 
>> ====
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150714/1e42abc2/attachment.htm>

From athompso at athompso.net  Tue Jul 14 16:03:19 2015
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:03:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <7817ea505a634ab7bd29303874903990@TK-Ex13.ad.tknow.com>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
	<7817ea505a634ab7bd29303874903990@TK-Ex13.ad.tknow.com>
Message-ID: <2DE46E15-12DA-4369-AE72-DDA22B27802F@athompso.net>

Further to my last message - it would be insane for me to register as an ISP, but for the very small number of delegations I'd ever do, I'd be willing to pay a (small-ish) fee for each delegation.
-Adam

On July 14, 2015 2:59:16 PM CDT, Bill Buhler <bill at tknow.com> wrote:
>As a IPv4 end user I can understand why some would want this ability,
>but we have no desire to do such. What if instead policy would allow
>end users to either elect to be treated as a ISP, or pay a fee to have
>access to SWIP? This would be similar to how voting rights are
>allocated now.  BTW one right I would love to have by default would be
>a vote without paying an additional fee, but that is of course another
>topic.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill Buhler
>TeKnowledgy, Inc. | Curing IT headaches since 2009
>675 East 2100 South, Suite 110???????? 
>Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
>385-202-7100 office
>385-202-7101 direct / mobile
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:12 PM
>To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
>IPv4 End-Users
>
>The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment
>records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea
>has an impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add
>reassignment records traditionally has been one of the differences
>between ISPs and end-users.
>
>I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users
>have any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted. 
>
>I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this
>change idea. 
>
>The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy
>changes the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one
>might expect that the fee levels might change for organizations which
>choose to take advantage of the additional functionality.
>
>Andrew
>
>On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more
>End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see
>end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs
>increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP
>(which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two
>right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be
>lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system
>by applying as end-users.
>>
>> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications
>in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to
>SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees)
>and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only
>organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I
>would support this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> GTG
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>
>>> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for 
>>> IPv4 End- Users
>>>
>>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I 
>>> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are 
>>> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community
>discussion.  
>>> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at
>this 
>>> point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community before
>
>>> submitting would be a valuable addition before going into the formal
>process.
>>>
>>> You comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>>
>>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>>
>>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create
>reassignment 
>>> records in the number resource database.
>>>
>>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions
>
>>> which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy
>
>>> by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>>
>>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow 
>>> the creation of additional records.
>>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different
>location
>>> within the database which is used by organizations creating 
>>> geo-location by IP address databases)
>>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary
>entity)
>>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have
>contracts
>>> with other organizations which are operating networks under 
>>> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level 
>>> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the 
>>> network in the number resource
>>> database)
>>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate
>large
>>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse 
>>> contact
>>> information)
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.    Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Create new section 4.3.x
>>>
>>> End-user organizations which have an active registration services 
>>> agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the 
>>> number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines 
>>> outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.
>>>
>>> 6.    Comments:
>>>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>>      b.    Anything else:
>>>
>>> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the 
>>> distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the 
>>> ability for an organization to create reassignment records.
>>>
>>> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it 
>>> impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>>>
>>> Below we have noted the three areas and the different
>responsibilities:
>>>
>>>
>>> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for
>those
>>> who wish to use it
>>>
>>> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation 
>>> process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be 
>>> accommodated in budget and the community supports
>>>
>>> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information 
>>> in certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage 
>>> assertion credibly
>>>
>>> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through
>
>>> the policy development process.
>>>
>>> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>>>
>>> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or 
>>> consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired
>outcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> ====
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>_______________________________________________
>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.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150714/9000cf90/attachment.htm>

From mike at iptrading.com  Tue Jul 14 16:05:20 2015
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:05:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <7817ea505a634ab7bd29303874903990@TK-Ex13.ad.tknow.com>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
	<7817ea505a634ab7bd29303874903990@TK-Ex13.ad.tknow.com>
Message-ID: <00fb01d0be70$6996a7c0$3cc3f740$@iptrading.com>

I wonder if SWIPped addresses would be a sufficient display of utilization, or would ARIN need to investigate the SWIPped blocks more deeply to ensure utilization ratio of the "parent" end-user, if that end-user comes to ARIN looking to buy addresses and has to justify their purchase?



-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Buhler
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 3:59 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

As a IPv4 end user I can understand why some would want this ability, but we have no desire to do such. What if instead policy would allow end users to either elect to be treated as a ISP, or pay a fee to have access to SWIP? This would be similar to how voting rights are allocated now.  BTW one right I would love to have by default would be a vote without paying an additional fee, but that is of course another topic.

Best regards,

Bill Buhler
TeKnowledgy, Inc. | Curing IT headaches since 2009
675 East 2100 South, Suite 110
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
385-202-7100 office
385-202-7101 direct / mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea has an impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add reassignment records traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and end-users.

I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users have any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted. 

I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this change idea. 

The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy changes the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one might expect that the fee levels might change for organizations which choose to take advantage of the additional functionality.

Andrew

On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.
>
> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> GTG
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
>> IPv4 End- Users
>>
>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I 
>> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are 
>> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.
>> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at this 
>> point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community before 
>> submitting would be a valuable addition before going into the formal process.
>>
>> You comments are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>
>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>
>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>>
>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment 
>> records in the number resource database.
>>
>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions 
>> which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy 
>> by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>
>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow 
>> the creation of additional records.
>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
>> within the database which is used by organizations creating 
>> geo-location by IP address databases)
>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
>> with other organizations which are operating networks under 
>> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level 
>> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the 
>> network in the number resource
>> database)
>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse 
>> contact
>> information)
>>
>>
>> 5.    Policy statement:
>>
>> Create new section 4.3.x
>>
>> End-user organizations which have an active registration services 
>> agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the 
>> number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines 
>> outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.
>>
>> 6.    Comments:
>>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>      b.    Anything else:
>>
>> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the 
>> distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the 
>> ability for an organization to create reassignment records.
>>
>> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it 
>> impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>>
>> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
>>
>>
>> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
>> who wish to use it
>>
>> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation 
>> process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be 
>> accommodated in budget and the community supports
>>
>> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information 
>> in certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage 
>> assertion credibly
>>
>> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through 
>> the policy development process.
>>
>> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>>
>> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or 
>> consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
>>
>>
>> ====
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
_______________________________________________
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 michael at linuxmagic.com  Tue Jul 14 16:16:29 2015
From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:16:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
 End-Users
In-Reply-To: <00fb01d0be70$6996a7c0$3cc3f740$@iptrading.com>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>	<7817ea505a634ab7bd29303874903990@TK-Ex13.ad.tknow.com>
	<00fb01d0be70$6996a7c0$3cc3f740$@iptrading.com>
Message-ID: <55A56E1D.2050404@linuxmagic.com>

Well, this proposal scares me..

Similar to what is alluded to below, ARIN has a hard enough time getting 
the ISP's to properly SWIP usage..

And allowing end users to SWIP might even set the stage for more abuse.

I could see spammers changing the SWIP daily to their advantage.. (oh, 
that was a different guy) even if they had to pay.

We already have a 'rwhois' system that can be used to address the 
problem suggested.. No reason why an ISP can't create a 'rwhois' system 
for their customers

And yes, needs justification in this case, it would increase the ARIN 
workload I believe..

I think ARIN just has to put more teeth into getting members to use 
proper 'rwhois' first..



On 15-07-14 01:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> I wonder if SWIPped addresses would be a sufficient display of utilization, or would ARIN need to investigate the SWIPped blocks more deeply to ensure utilization ratio of the "parent" end-user, if that end-user comes to ARIN looking to buy addresses and has to justify their purchase?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Buhler
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 3:59 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>
> As a IPv4 end user I can understand why some would want this ability, but we have no desire to do such. What if instead policy would allow end users to either elect to be treated as a ISP, or pay a fee to have access to SWIP? This would be similar to how voting rights are allocated now.  BTW one right I would love to have by default would be a vote without paying an additional fee, but that is of course another topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bill Buhler
> TeKnowledgy, Inc. | Curing IT headaches since 2009
> 675 East 2100 South, Suite 110
> Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
> 385-202-7100 office
> 385-202-7101 direct / mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:12 PM
> To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>
> The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea has an impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add reassignment records traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and end-users.
>
> I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users have any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted.
>
> I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this change idea.
>
> The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy changes the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one might expect that the fee levels might change for organizations which choose to take advantage of the additional functionality.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.
>>
>> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> GTG
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>>> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
>>> IPv4 End- Users
>>>
>>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I
>>> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are
>>> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.
>>> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at this
>>> point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community before
>>> submitting would be a valuable addition before going into the formal process.
>>>
>>> You comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>>
>>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>>
>>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
>>> records in the number resource database.
>>>
>>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions
>>> which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy
>>> by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>>
>>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow
>>> the creation of additional records.
>>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
>>> within the database which is used by organizations creating
>>> geo-location by IP address databases)
>>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
>>> with other organizations which are operating networks under
>>> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level
>>> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the
>>> network in the number resource
>>> database)
>>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
>>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse
>>> contact
>>> information)
>>>
>>>




-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Jul 14 16:21:36 2015
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:21:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWnU9V80TWE2dpGf4XJ01AgwZDO6eXGB_fJxPu6QqWuVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> End-user organizations which have an active registration services agreement
> shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the number resource
> database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines outlined in section 4.2.3
> when creating reassignment records.

Hi Andrew,

In a general sense, I'm sympathetic to the idea of reducing or
eliminating the distinction between ISPs and end-users. Even if that
means I pay more.

In this specific instance, I would not want to pay more solely to gain
a feature that has no value to me.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>


From jlewis at lewis.org  Tue Jul 14 17:06:55 2015
From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
 End-Users
In-Reply-To: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1507141658320.10544@soloth.lewis.org>

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Andrew Dul wrote:

> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>
> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>
> 4.    Problem Statement:
>
> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment records 
> in the number resource database.
>
> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions which 
> could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy by allowing 
> organizations to add additional details in the database.
>
> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow the 
> creation of additional records.
> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location 
> within the database which is used by organizations creating geo-location by 
> IP address databases)
> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a portion 
> of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)

I think it is inevitable (or is it already happening?) that some end-users 
with unused space will decide to act as LIRs.  I think its in everyone's 
best interest that they be able to SWIP.

If these end-user LIRs want to be able to SWIP their customer blocks, 
should they have to convert their assignments to allocations (and pay the 
likely much larger annual fee(s))?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
                              |  therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________


From owen at delong.com  Tue Jul 14 19:18:00 2015
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:18:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records
	for	IPv4	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <5CE2B163-7B1B-4AB8-BC06-8694E310C29E@athompso.net>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
	<5CE2B163-7B1B-4AB8-BC06-8694E310C29E@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <3FA9389D-46DB-48AF-8E0F-6C99A737C7CE@delong.com>





> On Jul 14, 2015, at 13:00, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> 
> "... parents own a controlling share" language would cause me to argue against it.
> There are other entities using /28s inside my /24 that I'd like to SWIP just to avoid the abuse@ notifications (one of them has generated a few already!), but although there's a good technical and contractual justification for giving those entities their own distinct subnets, they have nothing more than a contractual relationship with me. Yet I'm still not an ISP as far as I'm concerned.
> 

By policy definition, you are, actually. 

Owen

> At the moment, because I'm an "end-user", I cannot update the registry with factually-correct data. I would hope that the original proposal allows for scenarios like mine. I'm absolutely certain, being personally aware of dozens of similar situations, that there are massive amounts of "stealth" delegations happening under ARIN's radar.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
>> On July 14, 2015 10:08:24 AM CDT, "Gary T. Giesen" <ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me> wrote:
>> Andrew,
>> 
>> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.
>> 
>> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP? Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> GTG 
>> 
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>>  Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>>>  Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>>>  To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>  Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-
>>>  Users
>>>  
>>>  The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I have drafted
>>>  the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are posting the ideas and
>>>  proposal here to PPML for community discussion.  This draft has not been
>>>  submitted formally to the PDP process at this point.  I believed having initial
>>>  feedback from the community before submitting would be a valuable
>>>  addition before going into the formal process.
>>>  
>>>  You comments are welcome.
>>>  
>>>  Thanks,
>>>  Andrew
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  ====
>>>  
>>>  Template:
>>> ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>>  
>>>  1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>>  
>>>  4.    Problem Statement:
>>>  
>>>  End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
>>>  records in the number resource database.
>>>  
>>>  Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions which
>>>  could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy by allowing
>>>  organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>>  
>>>  The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow the
>>>  creation of additional records.
>>>  -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
>>>  within the database which is used by organizations creating geo-location by
>>>  IP address databases)
>>>  -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>>>  portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>>>  -    Ass
>>>  ignment
>>> to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
>>>  with other organizations which are operating networks under agreements
>>>  with the registrant, this allows the top-level organizations to accurately
>>>  specify the organization operating the network in the number resource
>>>  database)
>>>  -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
>>>  networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse contact
>>>  information)
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  5.    Policy statement:
>>>  
>>>  Create new section 4.3.x
>>>  
>>>  End-user organizations which have an active registration services agreement
>>>  shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the number resource
>>>  database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines outlined in section 4.2.3
>>>  when creating reassignment records.
>>>  
>>>  6.    Comments:
>>>       a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>>       b.    Anything else:
>>>  
>>>  It
>>> is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the distinctions in
>>>  the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the ability for an
>>>  organization to create reassignment records.
>>>  
>>>  This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it impacts
>>>  number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>>>  
>>>  Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
>>>  who wish to use it
>>>  
>>>  This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation process,
>>>  so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be accommodated in
>>>  budget and the community supports
>>>  
>>>  B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information in
>>>  certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage assertion credibly
>>>  
>>>  This is a policy issue.  These requirements should 
>>>  be
>>> vetted through the
>>>  policy development process.
>>>  
>>>  C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>>>  
>>>  This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or consultation
>>>  to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  ====
>>> 
>>>  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.
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150714/39373b17/attachment.htm>

From ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me  Wed Jul 15 14:22:28 2015
From: ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me (Gary T. Giesen)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:22:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
Message-ID: <02cf01d0bf2b$34e18c00$9ea4a400$@giesen.me>

Andrew,

As an aside, why make it only for IPv4 end users? Is there any reason not to do it for v6 as well?

GTG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net]
> Sent: July 14, 2015 3:12 PM
> To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
> End-Users
> 
> The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment
> records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea has an
> impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add reassignment records
> traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and end-users.
> 
> I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users have
> any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted.
> 
> I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this change
> idea.
> 
> The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy changes
> the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one might expect
> that the fee levels might change for organizations which choose to take
> advantage of the additional functionality.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs
> ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP,
> but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will
> argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical
> distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue
> their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to
> game the system by applying as end-users.
> >
> > Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in
> terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP?
> Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient
> language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in
> which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > GTG
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> >> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> >> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
> >> IPv4 End- Users
> >>
> >> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I
> >> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are
> >> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.
> >> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at this
> >> point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community before
> >> submitting would be a valuable addition before going into the formal
> process.
> >>
> >> You comments are welcome.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >>
> >> ====
> >>
> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
> >>
> >> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
> >>
> >> 4.    Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
> >> records in the number resource database.
> >>
> >> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions
> >> which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy
> >> by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
> >>
> >> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow
> >> the creation of additional records.
> >> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
> >> within the database which is used by organizations creating
> >> geo-location by IP address databases)
> >> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
> >> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
> >> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
> >> with other organizations which are operating networks under
> >> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level
> >> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the
> >> network in the number resource
> >> database)
> >> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
> >> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse
> >> contact
> >> information)
> >>
> >>
> >> 5.    Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Create new section 4.3.x
> >>
> >> End-user organizations which have an active registration services
> >> agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the
> >> number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines
> >> outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.
> >>
> >> 6.    Comments:
> >>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
> >>      b.    Anything else:
> >>
> >> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the
> >> distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the
> >> ability for an organization to create reassignment records.
> >>
> >> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it
> >> impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
> >>
> >> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
> >>
> >>
> >> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
> >> who wish to use it
> >>
> >> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation
> >> process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be
> >> accommodated in budget and the community supports
> >>
> >> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information
> >> in certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage
> >> assertion credibly
> >>
> >> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through
> >> the policy development process.
> >>
> >> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
> >>
> >> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or
> >> consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
> >>
> >>
> >> ====
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 mike at iptrading.com  Wed Jul 15 14:42:12 2015
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:42:12 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
	IPv4	End-Users
In-Reply-To: <02cf01d0bf2b$34e18c00$9ea4a400$@giesen.me>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
	<02cf01d0bf2b$34e18c00$9ea4a400$@giesen.me>
Message-ID: <008701d0bf2d$f6be3b00$e43ab100$@iptrading.com>

One more top post for a suggestion. 
I think the sub-delegation should include the option of port-range delegation.
There was a proposal recently, maybe it was APNIC, for the enhancement of Whois database structure to include port ranges.
Obviously this would help CGN providers to publish information reflecting identification of port ranges assigned to a customer.
It would make it possible to look up abuse contacts based only on IP plus port number, without the need to access CGN logs.
This should be voluntary but possible, IMO.
If this proposal eventually ends in a new system for end-users to sub-delegate, the marginal costs for the addition of port number fields in the database should be low.
If the existing SWIP system is used, maybe the costs will be too high.

Mike




-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Gary T. Giesen
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:22 PM
To: andrew.dul at quark.net; 'Gary T. Giesen'; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

Andrew,

As an aside, why make it only for IPv4 end users? Is there any reason not to do it for v6 as well?

GTG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net]
> Sent: July 14, 2015 3:12 PM
> To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records 
> for IPv4 End-Users
> 
> The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment 
> records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea 
> has an impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add 
> reassignment records traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and end-users.
> 
> I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and 
> end-users have any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted.
> 
> I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this 
> change idea.
> 
> The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy 
> changes the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one 
> might expect that the fee levels might change for organizations which 
> choose to take advantage of the additional functionality.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more 
> > End-User vs
> ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able 
> to SWIP, but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. 
> Also, ISPs will argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the 
> biggest technical distinction between the two right now ) and pay far 
> less, they'll either argue their fees should be lowered, the end users 
> fees should be raised, or try to game the system by applying as end-users.
> >
> > Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the 
> > implications in
> terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP?
> Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and 
> sufficient language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only 
> organizations in which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > GTG
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> >> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> >> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
> >> IPv4 End- Users
> >>
> >> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I 
> >> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are 
> >> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.
> >> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at 
> >> this point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community 
> >> before submitting would be a valuable addition before going into 
> >> the formal
> process.
> >>
> >> You comments are welcome.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >>
> >> ====
> >>
> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
> >>
> >> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
> >>
> >> 4.    Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create 
> >> reassignment records in the number resource database.
> >>
> >> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different 
> >> functions which could benefit the overall desire to increase 
> >> database accuracy by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
> >>
> >> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow 
> >> the creation of additional records.
> >> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
> >> within the database which is used by organizations creating 
> >> geo-location by IP address databases)
> >> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
> >> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
> >> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
> >> with other organizations which are operating networks under 
> >> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level 
> >> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the 
> >> network in the number resource
> >> database)
> >> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
> >> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse 
> >> contact
> >> information)
> >>
> >>
> >> 5.    Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Create new section 4.3.x
> >>
> >> End-user organizations which have an active registration services 
> >> agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the 
> >> number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines 
> >> outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.
> >>
> >> 6.    Comments:
> >>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
> >>      b.    Anything else:
> >>
> >> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the 
> >> distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the 
> >> ability for an organization to create reassignment records.
> >>
> >> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it 
> >> impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
> >>
> >> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
> >>
> >>
> >> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
> >> who wish to use it
> >>
> >> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation 
> >> process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be 
> >> accommodated in budget and the community supports
> >>
> >> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information 
> >> in certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage 
> >> assertion credibly
> >>
> >> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted 
> >> through the policy development process.
> >>
> >> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
> >>
> >> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or 
> >> consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
> >>
> >>
> >> ====
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 athompso at athompso.net  Wed Jul 15 17:42:22 2015
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:42:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for	IPv4
 End-Users
In-Reply-To: <3FA9389D-46DB-48AF-8E0F-6C99A737C7CE@delong.com>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
	<5CE2B163-7B1B-4AB8-BC06-8694E310C29E@athompso.net>
	<3FA9389D-46DB-48AF-8E0F-6C99A737C7CE@delong.com>
Message-ID: <55A6D3BE.7050701@athompso.net>

On 07/14/2015 06:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 13:00, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net 
> <mailto:athompso at athompso.net>> wrote:
>> [...] but although there's a good technical and contractual 
>> justification for giving those entities their own distinct subnets, 
>> they have nothing more than a contractual relationship with me. Yet 
>> I'm still not an ISP as far as I'm concerned.
> By policy definition, you are, actually.
> Owen

Yes... in the same way that crossing the street in the middle of the 
block at lunch yesterday, and speeding slightly on the way to work this 
morning, made me a criminal.  Yet, strangely, I don't think of myself as 
a criminal.

One of the things every so-called 'leadership' school teaches is "Never 
give an order you know will not be obeyed".

While it's origins appear to be military, a corollary has been stated[1]:
> ?Never pass a law that huge numbers of people will break?. Passing 
> such laws does little or nothing to change human behavior, but does a 
> great deal to undermine the rule of law.
Policymakers are subject to the same forces - if a policy is ignored or 
deliberately violated by a sufficiently large group of affected 
entities, it ceases to be usefully enforceable.  "Sufficiently large" is 
directly relevant to both the enforcement resources available and human 
group dynamics.

As I stated in a previous email, I am personally aware of dozens of 
"enterprises" who have partially-ceded control of their IP address 
assignment to 3rd-parties for entirely valid, normal, non-ISP-like 
reasons.  Off the top of my head, extranets, HVAC systems, and security 
systems all come to mind.  (For clarity, yes, I'm still talking about 
the public portable address space.)
IMHO, it doesn't make sense to suddenly call them ISPs unless renting IP 
address space is a noticeable part of their business, or perhaps if a 
substantial part of their allocation is partially under someone else's 
control.

If you think it does make sense to call them an ISP, then I think that's 
a signal that it's high time to discard the distinction between ISP and 
Enterprise, and move to a fee-for-service model instead.

My understanding - and this could easily be wrong - is that the 
distinction originally came into being because of the different amounts 
of effort required on ARIN's part to service the customer; an ISP was 
expected to cause significantly more work over a year than an enterprise.

I get that as an enterprise, paying the lower fee structure, I shouldn't 
have access to all the "features" an ISP - paying the higher fees - 
does.  That's fairly straightforward.  But on the flip side, some ISPs 
are SWIPing and requesting new allocations all day long, but some only 
do it once a year.  Lumping them together isn't fair, either... if an 
ISP never delegated address blocks and had relatively static 
requirements, why on earth would they self-declare as an ISP?  I'm not 
*saying* I know anyone who's doing that, but...

(I also favour a so-called "flat tax", could you tell? <grin>)

Reducing the distinctions between ISP and Enterprise makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, I don't think the financial discussion can possibly 
happen only *after* the theoretical discussion, as originally postulated.
This is an area where IMO the usually-clear(ish) distinction between 
Community, AC, Board and Staff won't entirely work.

-Adam


[1] I've heard it before, but the only reference I could find to it 
today was 
http://www.twopotscreamer.com/never-give-an-order-that-you-know-will-not-be-obeyed/. 
FWIW, Gen. D. MacArthur also said "Never give an order you know can't be 
obeyed", which isn't quite the same thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150715/362f5ede/attachment.htm>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Thu Jul 16 11:28:37 2015
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:28:37 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
 End-Users
In-Reply-To: <02cf01d0bf2b$34e18c00$9ea4a400$@giesen.me>
References: <55A3D9BD.4040808@quark.net>
	<00f101d0be46$ee9e14f0$cbda3ed0$@giesen.me>
	<55A55EED.9050508@quark.net>
	<02cf01d0bf2b$34e18c00$9ea4a400$@giesen.me>
Message-ID: <55A7CDA5.1060307@quark.net>

The proposal was drafted based upon the desire expressed by
organizations to add records for IPv4, one could easily assume that IPv6
records might also be desired.  From my perspective, I thought it best
to start with the IPv4 discussion as that was the known expressed
problem by operators.

Andrew

On 7/15/2015 11:22 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> As an aside, why make it only for IPv4 end users? Is there any reason not to do it for v6 as well?
>
> GTG
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net]
>> Sent: July 14, 2015 3:12 PM
>> To: Gary T. Giesen; 'Andrew Dul'; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4
>> End-Users
>>
>> The intention is to allow for end-users to be able to add reassignment
>> records to the database.  As noted in the policy proposal, this idea has an
>> impact of the fee categories, because the ability to add reassignment records
>> traditionally has been one of the differences between ISPs and end-users.
>>
>> I think we need to consider if the categories of IPv4 ISP and end-users have
>> any significance now that the IPv4 free pool has been exhausted.
>>
>> I will let ARIN staff comment on the cost/workload aspects of this change
>> idea.
>>
>> The fees themselves are the purview of the board.  Since this policy changes
>> the service levels that ARIN would provide to end-users one might expect
>> that the fee levels might change for organizations which choose to take
>> advantage of the additional functionality.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 7/14/2015 8:08 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> Is it your intention to create a single class of users (ie. no more End-User vs
>> ISP), or maintain the distinction? I'd like to see end-users be able to SWIP,
>> but I'd don't want to see their costs increase because of it. Also, ISPs will
>> argue if end-users can SWIP (which is probably the biggest technical
>> distinction between the two right now ) and pay far less, they'll either argue
>> their fees should be lowered, the end users fees should be raised, or try to
>> game the system by applying as end-users.
>>> Do we have any indication from ARIN staff as to what the implications in
>> terms of cost/workload would be if end-users would be allowed to SWIP?
>> Again, if the impact is minimal (ie no raising of end-user fees) and sufficient
>> language was put around who they could SWIP to (ie only organizations in
>> which the parent owns a controlling share, etc) then I would support this.
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> GTG
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>>>> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>>>> Sent: July 13, 2015 11:31 AM
>>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for
>>>> IPv4 End- Users
>>>>
>>>> The AC has been discussing the following ideas on their list and I
>>>> have drafted the following policy proposal as an outcome.  We are
>>>> posting the ideas and proposal here to PPML for community discussion.
>>>> This draft has not been submitted formally to the PDP process at this
>>>> point.  I believed having initial feedback from the community before
>>>> submitting would be a valuable addition before going into the formal
>> process.
>>>> You comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ====
>>>>
>>>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>>>>
>>>> 1.    Policy Proposal Name: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>>>>
>>>> 4.    Problem Statement:
>>>>
>>>> End-User Organizations do not have the ability to create reassignment
>>>> records in the number resource database.
>>>>
>>>> Reassignment records can be used for a number of different functions
>>>> which could benefit the overall desire to increase database accuracy
>>>> by allowing organizations to add additional details in the database.
>>>>
>>>> The following reasons have been noted as positive reasons to allow
>>>> the creation of additional records.
>>>> -    Geolocation (allows an organization to specify a different location
>>>> within the database which is used by organizations creating
>>>> geo-location by IP address databases)
>>>> -    Subsidiary reassignment (allows an organization to note that a
>>>> portion of their netblock is in use by a different subsidiary entity)
>>>> -    Assignment to contracted parties (some organizations have contracts
>>>> with other organizations which are operating networks under
>>>> agreements with the registrant, this allows the top-level
>>>> organizations to accurately specify the organization operating the
>>>> network in the number resource
>>>> database)
>>>> -    More specific contact information (some organizations operate large
>>>> networks which don?t necessarily have the same technical or abuse
>>>> contact
>>>> information)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5.    Policy statement:
>>>>
>>>> Create new section 4.3.x
>>>>
>>>> End-user organizations which have an active registration services
>>>> agreement shall be permitted to create reassignment records in the
>>>> number resource database.  Organizations shall use the guidelines
>>>> outlined in section 4.2.3 when creating reassignment records.
>>>>
>>>> 6.    Comments:
>>>>      a.    Timetable for implementation: immediately
>>>>      b.    Anything else:
>>>>
>>>> It is noted by the author of this policy proposal that one of the
>>>> distinctions in the service between ISPs and End-Users has been the
>>>> ability for an organization to create reassignment records.
>>>>
>>>> This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it
>>>> impacts number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.
>>>>
>>>> Below we have noted the three areas and the different responsibilities:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A)    Providing reassignment support for end-user assignments, for those
>>>> who wish to use it
>>>>
>>>> This is an ARIN Service issue - could be an suggestion/consultation
>>>> process, so long as any implied additional workload/cost can be
>>>> accommodated in budget and the community supports
>>>>
>>>> B) New requirement on end-users to provide reassignment information
>>>> in certain circumstances so that ARIN will treat their usage
>>>> assertion credibly
>>>>
>>>> This is a policy issue.  These requirements should be vetted through
>>>> the policy development process.
>>>>
>>>> C)    Fee Implications of ISPs moving to end-user category
>>>>
>>>> This is Board issue, but first requires a community discussion or
>>>> consultation to be held to solicit community input on desired outcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ====
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Jul 17 00:53:02 2015
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:53:02 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201507170453.t6H4r2Tn015173@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 17 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Jul 17 00:53:02 EDT 2015
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 17.65% |    3 | 25.67% |    56722 | athompso at athompso.net
 17.65% |    3 | 15.85% |    35020 | andrew.dul at quark.net
 11.76% |    2 | 12.11% |    26770 | mike at iptrading.com
 11.76% |    2 | 10.30% |    22770 | ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me
  5.88% |    1 |  9.83% |    21730 | owen at delong.com
  5.88% |    1 |  6.00% |    13249 | bill at tknow.com
  5.88% |    1 |  5.65% |    12492 | mueller at syr.edu
  5.88% |    1 |  5.64% |    12473 | michael at linuxmagic.com
  5.88% |    1 |  3.10% |     6848 | narten at us.ibm.com
  5.88% |    1 |  3.07% |     6792 | jlewis at lewis.org
  5.88% |    1 |  2.77% |     6113 | bill at herrin.us
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   17 |100.00% |   220979 | Total



From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Mon Jul 20 12:17:23 2015
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:17:23 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Hello,

This morning's email announcing the opening of the nominations period for Board of Trustees seats has me stewing on a topic that's bothered me for a while. 

What fair and objective data does a voter have to judge how well an incumbent is doing?  

I have been involved with ARIN in various capacities since 1999 and pay a LOT of attention.  But in most cases, I can't tell you how good a Board member is.  I suspect that's because so much of our activity as the collective ARIN happens in the policy making arena, and the Board has chosen to be mostly silent in that arena.  At our April meeting in San Francisco, I saw a Board member sit silent for the entire 3 days. Before that member was on the board, however, he was a strong, productive, effective advocate for good policy who earned my vote.  Now he's silent.  What am I supposed to think now when he runs for re-election? How do I judge if he's earned another term? I read the published minutes of the Board meetings, and they're not particularly enlightening.

Does the Board Does the Board conduct any reviews or evaluations of Board member performance? Is any of that available to the members?
I mean, the CEO gets reviewed, yes?  If the Board can review the CEO, would it be a stretch to ask for reviews of the other 6 members of the Board? 

David

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation



From michael at linuxmagic.com  Mon Jul 20 12:41:44 2015
From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:41:44 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>

On 15-07-20 09:17 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> Does the Board Does the Board conduct any reviews or evaluations of Board member performance? Is any of that available to the members?
> I mean, the CEO gets reviewed, yes?  If the Board can review the CEO, would it be a stretch to ask for reviews of the other 6 members of the Board?

Actually, we just covered that topic in our own board meeting, and 
normally there is a mechanism for review, either available to the share 
holders, or actually implemented by the board.

Is there any information available to the public on board 
responsibilities, and does it include a review mechanism?


-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.


From woody at pch.net  Mon Jul 20 12:58:36 2015
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:58:36 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2C5FBEE8-560B-491A-9D27-3CF9F90B15AD@pch.net>


> On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:17 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> What fair and objective data does a voter have to judge how well an incumbent is doing?

Even speaking as someone who?s been reelected several times, this bothers me quite a lot too, and I?m really glad David?s brought it up for discussion.  I hope this time we can continue the momentum through to some sort of conclusion, even if it?s a difficult conversation.

When people have voted for me, I?m grateful, but I know that they don?t have access to the information that I know I?d want before casting that vote, so I know they?re going on faith.  And I don?t think that?s a fair burden to put on our membership.  In a sense, only people who are already on the board have access to the information they need to cast an informed vote regarding the other incumbents.

So, one (admittedly very thin) source of information the members can turn to is to look at the published endorsements of incumbent candidates by other currently-sitting board members.  That at least gives some indication of what other board members think of an incumbent who?s running again, or (in the case of non-incumbent candidates) what those sitting board members think is needed in terms of new blood.

The deficiencies of this as a channel of information are many.  First and foremost, the board is collegial, and public and attributed statements that are negative makes for difficult relations within the board.  It?s easy to say that good relations within the board are less important to the membership than are results, but in reality, it?s very difficult to make progress when the board is at loggerheads.  So, there?s some value in maintaining that collegiality, and letting board members feel like they?re not in a position of having to trade votes for public support, for instance, which would be a bad outcome.

> I can't tell you how good a Board member is.  I suspect that's because so much of our activity as the collective ARIN happens in the policy making arena, and the Board has chosen to be mostly silent in that arena.

I wouldn?t say that the board has chosen to be silent, I?d say that a majority of the board has chosen for the board to be silent.  I?d say that this is actually one of the most contentious issues within the board.  As well, it?s one of the things that makes the nomcom?s job hardest: the best candidates know that if they win, they?ll be effectively silenced on issues of policy.  I think it?s also worthy of note that although the danger of an activist board is not negligible, it?s a putative danger over which the board is self-censoring, rather than an issue raised by the membership.

> I read the published minutes of the Board meetings, and they're not particularly enlightening.

This is an issue that the AfriNIC community is confronting at the moment.  The membership appears to be on the verge of demanding transcripts, rather than minutes, of their board.  On the other hand, they?re facing board transparency problems far worse than ARIN is, and the danger of chilling discussion of difficult issues is also a real one.

> Does the Board Does the Board conduct any reviews or evaluations of Board member performance?

Not really, no.

> I mean, the CEO gets reviewed, yes?

Yes, that?s correct.  Though I believe the results are protected under HR policy.  Anyone is welcome to correct me if I?m wrong on that.

> If the Board can review the CEO, would it be a stretch to ask for reviews of the other 6 members of the Board?

That seems reasonable enough; my one caveat would be that the criteria by which a CEO is reviewed are reasonably cut-and-dried.  Before you could have useful reviews of board member performance, you?d need (1) to decide on criteria, and (2) to instrument those criteria.  To my observation, neither of those is as straight-forward as one might hope.

One transparency mechanism I had high hopes for was the one we discussed at the mic at the end of last fall?s meeting in Baltimore: use of the ASCP process for public discussion between the membership and the board members, either singly or each or collectively.  For instance, a member could use the ASCP process to ask each board member to state their position on membership categories and fees.  Or to ask each board member how they voted on an issue, and to defend their choice.  Or for their opinion on the success of the IPv4 marketplace.  Any of these would give the membership more insight than they have now, and it would provide a public commitment that board members, and the board as a whole, could be held to in their performance.  As such, it would be one way of beginning to establish criteria that board members could be measured against?  not static criteria, but the dynamic criteria of their positions on, and response to, the issues that confront ARIN, both predictable and unpredictable.

In any event, I?m very happy to see this topic aired, and I look forward to a good conversation and some actionable result!

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150720/d9c0e0eb/attachment.sig>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Jul 20 13:46:20 2015
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:46:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
Message-ID: <4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>

On Jul 20, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com<mailto:michael at linuxmagic.com>> wrote:
Is there any information available to the public on board responsibilities, and does it include a review mechanism?

Michael -

Yes, available online here -  https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot_requirements.html
(and attached below as text for reference)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

=== ARIN BOARD MEMBER REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
  [page1image1560]
INITIAL REQUIREMENTS

Any incoming Board Member must:

Possess experience in providing executive organizational oversight and performing fiduciary duties at the corporate level and making high-level budgetary and/or other corporate/executive decisions.

Attend several in-person meetings held in various locations throughout the year and participate in periodic conference calls.

Adhere to the Nomination and Appointment Conflict of Interest List

Sign an ARIN Non-Disclosure Agreement and complete a Conflict of Interest document and any other applicable documentation in use at the time.


RESPONSIBILITIES

ARIN Board Member responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

Adhering to the Board Conflict of Interest Statement
Attending all Board Meetings
Overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of ARIN
Managing ARIN's goals and objectives in a manner consistent with the scope and mission
Providing fiduciary oversight of ARIN's revenue and expenses
Determining the disposition of all revenues received to ensure that all services are provided in an equitable manner
Voting on proposals generated from the membership and submitted through the Advisory Council.
Representing ARIN in public fora in a manner which adheres to corporate messaging standards
Subscribing to and regularly monitoring all public ARIN mailing lists, including ARIN-Discuss (members only) Volunteering in standing and special committees that may be formed
Volunteering to travel on behalf of ARIN for conferences and events



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150720/b44ee1ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: page1image1560.png
Type: image/png
Size: 335 bytes
Desc: page1image1560.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150720/b44ee1ae/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: page1image1728.png
Type: image/png
Size: 123 bytes
Desc: page1image1728.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150720/b44ee1ae/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: page1image2336.png
Type: image/png
Size: 111 bytes
Desc: page1image2336.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150720/b44ee1ae/attachment-0002.png>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Mon Jul 20 13:57:48 2015
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:57:48 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

So looking at the RESPONSIBILITIES section, one idea would be to ask any Board member running for re-election about each listed responsibility, and ask them to describe how they've met that responsibility. That could happen after the nominations period, but before the election in October.  

"ARIN Board Member responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

Adhering to the Board Conflict of Interest Statement
Attending all Board Meetings
Overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of ARIN
Managing ARIN's goals and objectives in a manner consistent with the scope and mission
Providing fiduciary oversight of ARIN's revenue and expenses
Determining the disposition of all revenues received to ensure that all services are provided in an equitable manner 
Voting on proposals generated from the membership and submitted through the Advisory Council.
Representing ARIN in public fora in a manner which adheres to corporate messaging standards
Subscribing to and regularly monitoring all public ARIN mailing lists, including ARIN-Discuss (members only) Volunteering in standing and special committees that may be formed
Volunteering to travel on behalf of ARIN for conferences and events"




From owen at delong.com  Mon Jul 20 17:20:35 2015
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:20:35 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3E9A1FC0-A076-44F1-B7B8-033CB2C518B6@delong.com>


> On Jul 20, 2015, at 09:17 , David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This morning's email announcing the opening of the nominations period for Board of Trustees seats has me stewing on a topic that's bothered me for a while. 
> 
> What fair and objective data does a voter have to judge how well an incumbent is doing?  

Board meeting minutes
ARIN?s published financials
Interactions with the board members
The answers they provide to the questionnaire
The overall apparent health and performance of the organization

In short, quite a bit more than we actually usually get for senators, congress-critters, presidents, governors, etc.

> I have been involved with ARIN in various capacities since 1999 and pay a LOT of attention.  But in most cases, I can't tell you how good a Board member is.  I suspect that's because so much of our activity as the collective ARIN happens in the policy making arena, and the Board has chosen to be mostly silent in that arena.  At our April meeting in San Francisco, I saw a Board member sit silent for the entire 3 days. Before that member was on the board, however, he was a strong, productive, effective advocate for good policy who earned my vote.  Now he's silent.  What am I supposed to think now when he runs for re-election? How do I judge if he's earned another term? I read the published minutes of the Board meetings, and they're not particularly enlightening.

They?re getting better recently, but I agree that the minutes used to be pretty bleak. I believe that the recent improvement is, at least in part, due to a request on my part that the board increase its transparency. (I think the AC as a whole made that request as well, but I had made it privately prior to that).

The board tries to stay out of the policy process because they serve as a check-and-balance on the AC. As a general rule, it?s never a good idea to have those developing policy actively involved in enforcing it. One need look no further than the results of the private prison lobby to see how this creates all kinds of improper incentives. While I do think it is somewhat unfortunate to lose good voices in the PDP, I believe that the higher level of service offered by board members more than makes up for their silence in the PDP and that said silence is truly in the service of the community.

> Does the Board Does the Board conduct any reviews or evaluations of Board member performance? Is any of that available to the members?
> I mean, the CEO gets reviewed, yes?  If the Board can review the CEO, would it be a stretch to ask for reviews of the other 6 members of the Board? 

I question the value or objectivity of any such action. I think in the best case, you might get a mutual admiration society. In the worst case, you have created an opportunity for the worst kinds of underhanded politics and cliques.

Owen



From info at arin.net  Tue Jul 21 13:33:14 2015
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:33:14 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2015
Message-ID: <55AE825A.9020407@arin.net>

In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN 
Advisory Council (AC) met on 16 July 2015.

Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and
meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC
recommended it for adoption; it will be posted as Recommended Draft
Policy for discussion:

   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how 
ARIN handles reorganizations

The AC is continuing to work on:

   Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for 
IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to 
Specified Recipients)
   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in 
end-user IPv4 policy
   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated 
need for IPv4 transfers

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  Tue Jul 21 13:33:28 2015
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:33:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2
 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations
Message-ID: <55AE8268.2090107@arin.net>

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4
Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations

On 16 July 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
ARIN-2015-4 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.

ARIN-2015-4 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_4.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-4 on the PPML prior to
the ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Montreal in October 
2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by 
the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for 
adopting this as policy.

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

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


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4
Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations

Date: 21 July 2015

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy:

2015-4 is largely editorial in nature and does not change policy 
implementation, but clarifies existing use of policy. The proposal is 
fair in that it provides a consistent interface for transfers and 
clarifies the transfer policy. It is technically sound in that it is 
already effectively implemented. The proposal has received support on 
the mailing list and we expect it to be generally supported by the 
community as it is the direct result of community feed back on the 
existing policy.

Problem Statement:

ARIN staff indicated that NRPM 8.2 does not clearly indicate how ARIN 
procedures handle reorganizations. ARIN staff indicated that the first 
policy bullet point does not apply to reorganizations.

Policy statement:

Replacement text for entire 8.2 section:

8.2. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Reorganizations

ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the 
case of mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations under the following 
conditions:

-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.

-For mergers and acquisition transfers, the recipient 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.

In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no 
longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the 
transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work 
with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer resources as needed to 
restore compliance via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy.

Comments:

The problem statement is addressed by:

-re-title 8.2

-clarify the documentation bullet point

-rearrange the documentation bullet to the end of the list since it only 
applies to some requestors, while the other bullet points apply to all 
requestors.

a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate

b.Anything else

#####

ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4
Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_4.html

Date of Assessment: July 14, 2015

___
1. Summary (Staff Understanding)
This proposal would provide clarification to the 8.2 transfer policy for 
reorganizations. It does this by adding "reorganizations" to the title, 
and clarifies that evidence of acquired assets is only required for 
merger and acquisition transfers; not reorganizations.

___
2. Comments
A. ARIN Staff Comments
This proposal can be implemented as written. Minimal staff training and 
preparation would be needed to implement this if it were to become 
policy. The proposal clarifies a point about reorganizations that has 
been confusing to customers in the past. We see no negative impacts.

B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment
Counsel sees no material legal issues in this policy.

___
3. Resource Impact
This policy would require minimal staff training and preparation. We see 
no negative impacts.

___
4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4

Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations

Problem Statement:

ARIN staff indicated that NRPM 8.2 does not clearly indicate how ARIN 
procedures handle reorganizations. ARIN staff indicated that the first 
policy bullet point does not apply to reorganizations.

Policy statement:

Replacement text for entire 8.2 section:

8.2. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Reorganizations

ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the 
case of mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations under the following 
conditions:

-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.
-For mergers and acquisition transfers, the recipient 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.

In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no 
longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the 
transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work 
with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer resources as needed to 
restore compliance via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy.

Comments:

The problem statement is addressed by:

-re-title 8.2
-clarify the documentation bullet point
-rearrange the documentation bullet to the end of the list since it only 
applies to some requestors, while the other bullet points apply to all 
requestors.

a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate

b.Anything else


From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Wed Jul 22 09:37:42 2015
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:37:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

I had another idea for this.  

What if ARIN had a staffer conduct a long form interview with each of the Board candidates during the campaign window, and publish the interview to PPML or wherever? That would allow incumbents to be asked some difficult questions and provide meaningful answers.  It would also allow new candidates to speak directly, in long form, and allow them to differentiate themselves from incumbents. 

This would ideally be done and published in the first week or two of the campaign phase.

Just thinking out loud. 

David

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Huberman
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:58 AM
> To: John Curran; Michael Peddemors
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
> 
> So looking at the RESPONSIBILITIES section, one idea would be to ask any
> Board member running for re-election about each listed responsibility, and
> ask them to describe how they've met that responsibility. That could happen
> after the nominations period, but before the election in October.
> 
> "ARIN Board Member responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
> 
> Adhering to the Board Conflict of Interest Statement
> Attending all Board Meetings
> Overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of ARIN
> Managing ARIN's goals and objectives in a manner consistent with the scope
> and mission
> Providing fiduciary oversight of ARIN's revenue and expenses
> Determining the disposition of all revenues received to ensure that all
> services are provided in an equitable manner
> Voting on proposals generated from the membership and submitted through
> the Advisory Council.
> Representing ARIN in public fora in a manner which adheres to corporate
> messaging standards
> Subscribing to and regularly monitoring all public ARIN mailing lists, including
> ARIN-Discuss (members only) Volunteering in standing and special
> committees that may be formed
> Volunteering to travel on behalf of ARIN for conferences and events"
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 woody at pch.net  Wed Jul 22 09:59:52 2015
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:59:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <FBA9CAB9-C893-44DC-936D-137F6216EBF7@pch.net>


> On Jul 22, 2015, at 6:37 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> What if ARIN had a staffer conduct a long form interview with each of the Board candidates during the campaign window, and publish the interview to PPML or wherever? That would allow incumbents to be asked some difficult questions and provide meaningful answers.  It would also allow new candidates to speak directly, in long form, and allow them to differentiate themselves from incumbents.
> This would ideally be done and published in the first week or two of the campaign phase.

In the current process, this interview/questionnaire is done by the nomcom.  Questions are proposed by the public, edited or consolidated as appropriate by the nomcom, posed to candidates, and the responses are published to the web site.

Can you elaborate on what you see as the significances of the differences you?re proposing?

https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/elec_procedures.html#botcv

https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/candidate_bios.pdf

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150722/b1078063/attachment.sig>

From kerriearichards at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 10:15:14 2015
From: kerriearichards at gmail.com (Kerrie-Ann)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:15:14 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
Message-ID: <0h786r6dvadduvst7ocqjgpm.1437574514336@email.android.com>

David

That is a brilliant idea. It would give us all a clearer picture of the candidates. ?I also agree with the scorecard at the end of each term for sitting members.?


Kerrie - Ann Richards
Skype: kerriearichards
Twitter: @kerriearichards

-------- Original message --------
From: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> 
Date: 22/07/2015  08:37  (GMT-05:00) 
To: "ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)" <ppml at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members 
 
I had another idea for this.? 

What if ARIN had a staffer conduct a long form interview with each of the Board candidates during the campaign window, and publish the interview to PPML or wherever? That would allow incumbents to be asked some difficult questions and provide meaningful answers.? It would also allow new candidates to speak directly, in long form, and allow them to differentiate themselves from incumbents. 

This would ideally be done and published in the first week or two of the campaign phase.

Just thinking out loud. 

David

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Huberman
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:58 AM
> To: John Curran; Michael Peddemors
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
> 
> So looking at the RESPONSIBILITIES section, one idea would be to ask any
> Board member running for re-election about each listed responsibility, and
> ask them to describe how they've met that responsibility. That could happen
> after the nominations period, but before the election in October.
> 
> "ARIN Board Member responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
> 
> Adhering to the Board Conflict of Interest Statement
> Attending all Board Meetings
> Overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of ARIN
> Managing ARIN's goals and objectives in a manner consistent with the scope
> and mission
> Providing fiduciary oversight of ARIN's revenue and expenses
> Determining the disposition of all revenues received to ensure that all
> services are provided in an equitable manner
> Voting on proposals generated from the membership and submitted through
> the Advisory Council.
> Representing ARIN in public fora in a manner which adheres to corporate
> messaging standards
> Subscribing to and regularly monitoring all public ARIN mailing lists, including
> ARIN-Discuss (members only) Volunteering in standing and special
> committees that may be formed
> Volunteering to travel on behalf of ARIN for conferences and events"
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150722/cf7e3823/attachment.htm>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Wed Jul 22 10:07:10 2015
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:07:10 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <FBA9CAB9-C893-44DC-936D-137F6216EBF7@pch.net>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<FBA9CAB9-C893-44DC-936D-137F6216EBF7@pch.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB39861A1E27E825013370A749B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

> In the current process, this interview/questionnaire is done by the nomcom.
> Questions are proposed by the public, edited or consolidated as appropriate
> by the nomcom, posed to candidates, and the responses are published to
> the web site.
> 
> Can you elaborate on what you see as the significances of the differences
> you?re proposing?
> 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/elec_procedures.html#botcv
> 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/candidate_bios.pdf


You're right - my idea overlaps the current questionnaire too much. 
Thanks Bill.  I'll keep cogitating on the larger issue, and hope others will too.

From woody at pch.net  Wed Jul 22 13:23:06 2015
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:23:06 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB39861A1E27E825013370A749B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<FBA9CAB9-C893-44DC-936D-137F6216EBF7@pch.net>
	<DM2PR03MB39861A1E27E825013370A749B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <48BB17A1-C89E-41F7-9B01-DD7693390C2D@pch.net>


> On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:07 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
>> In the current process, this interview/questionnaire is done by the nomcom.
>> Questions are proposed by the public, edited or consolidated as appropriate
>> by the nomcom, posed to candidates, and the responses are published to
>> the web site.
>> 
>> Can you elaborate on what you see as the significances of the differences
>> you?re proposing?
>> 
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/elec_procedures.html#botcv
>> 
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/candidate_bios.pdf
> 
> 
> You're right - my idea overlaps the current questionnaire too much.

I wasn?t criticizing your suggestion, I?m sure the current process can be improved (and this is a great time to do so, since we?re right at the beginning of the nomcom process for this year).  I just wanted to try to get the gist of what you felt needed to be prioritized.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150722/1329f90f/attachment.sig>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Wed Jul 22 13:29:13 2015
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:29:13 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <48BB17A1-C89E-41F7-9B01-DD7693390C2D@pch.net>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<FBA9CAB9-C893-44DC-936D-137F6216EBF7@pch.net>
	<DM2PR03MB39861A1E27E825013370A749B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<48BB17A1-C89E-41F7-9B01-DD7693390C2D@pch.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB398F9F4D81AB461872736FF9B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

> I wasn?t criticizing your suggestion, I?m sure the current process can be
> improved (and this is a great time to do so, since we?re right at the beginning
> of the nomcom process for this year).  I just wanted to try to get the gist of
> what you felt needed to be prioritized.

So picture a video (+transcript).  David sits down in front of a camera and talks with Bill Woodcock, incumbent BoT member who is running for re-election.  We have a talk for about 30 minutes on a wide range of issues, including things like:

- what have you accomplished over your current term on the Board?

- what needs to improve that you're willing to drive?

- what are your key deliverables for the next term you're running for? How will we measure those deliverables, and whether you succeeded or failed?

There's also talk about the Board in general, ARIN in general, and our future -- some along the lines of what's in the questionnaire today, but in a freer environment where there's more back and forth about the answers that are given.

Would that be helpful if such a video(+transcript) series existed?

From owen at delong.com  Wed Jul 22 16:44:27 2015
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:44:27 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board members
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB398F9F4D81AB461872736FF9B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM2PR03MB39843F6A6165E053A8508EF9B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<55AD24C8.4080604@linuxmagic.com>
	<4DA79C63-A86F-4355-BF97-FD2EC9317F47@corp.arin.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398388D296151E489E307C59B850@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<DM2PR03MB398D5B5C257E8581D674E709B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<FBA9CAB9-C893-44DC-936D-137F6216EBF7@pch.net>
	<DM2PR03MB39861A1E27E825013370A749B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<48BB17A1-C89E-41F7-9B01-DD7693390C2D@pch.net>
	<DM2PR03MB398F9F4D81AB461872736FF9B830@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DE78D863-7798-4732-93FF-5F14ABB9A51D@delong.com>

Minimum of 4 board candidates per year, 30 minutes per video, that?s a minimum of 2 hours of video for every informed voter to review?

May I humbly suggest that 15 minutes may be a more appropriate amount of time? The average televised interview of 30 minutes is usually
at least 10 minutes of commercials anyway, so I think doing it in 15 minutes should be adequate.

Owen

> On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:29 , David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
>> I wasn?t criticizing your suggestion, I?m sure the current process can be
>> improved (and this is a great time to do so, since we?re right at the beginning
>> of the nomcom process for this year).  I just wanted to try to get the gist of
>> what you felt needed to be prioritized.
> 
> So picture a video (+transcript).  David sits down in front of a camera and talks with Bill Woodcock, incumbent BoT member who is running for re-election.  We have a talk for about 30 minutes on a wide range of issues, including things like:
> 
> - what have you accomplished over your current term on the Board?
> 
> - what needs to improve that you're willing to drive?
> 
> - what are your key deliverables for the next term you're running for? How will we measure those deliverables, and whether you succeeded or failed?
> 
> There's also talk about the Board in general, ARIN in general, and our future -- some along the lines of what's in the questionnaire today, but in a freer environment where there's more back and forth about the answers that are given.
> 
> Would that be helpful if such a video(+transcript) series existed?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Jul 24 00:53:03 2015
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:53:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201507240453.t6O4r3EM023414@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 16 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Jul 24 00:53:03 EDT 2015
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 31.25% |    5 | 29.96% |    44906 | david.huberman at microsoft.com
 18.75% |    3 | 18.58% |    27856 | woody at pch.net
 12.50% |    2 | 11.36% |    17023 | info at arin.net
 12.50% |    2 | 10.20% |    15292 | owen at delong.com
  6.25% |    1 | 10.57% |    15836 | kerriearichards at gmail.com
  6.25% |    1 | 10.15% |    15217 | jcurran at arin.net
  6.25% |    1 |  4.81% |     7211 | narten at us.ibm.com
  6.25% |    1 |  4.37% |     6544 | michael at linuxmagic.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   16 |100.00% |   149885 | Total



From info at arin.net  Wed Jul 29 11:59:29 2015
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:59:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?NRPM_2015=2E3_=E2=80=93_New_Policies_Implem?=
 =?utf-8?q?ented_=28ARIN-2014-6_and_2014-21=29?=
Message-ID: <55B8F861.5020105@arin.net>

On 10 June 2015 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following number 
policies:

   ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text
   https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_6.html

   ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
   https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html

These new policies are now in effect. A new version of the ARIN Number 
Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website. 
NRPM version 2015.3 is effective 29 July 2015 and supersedes the 
previous version.

Regarding 2014-6, which removed reverse DNS text from the NRPM, we 
placed a new section called "Reverse DNS Delegation Management" in the 
Services section on the ARIN website; it can be found here:
https://www.arin.net/resources/services/#manage

Regarding 2014-21, the Critical Infrastructure pool was increased from a 
/16 equivalent to a /15 equivalent by the addition of 149.112.0.0/16. 
More information about micro-allocations can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html

The NRPM is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html

Board minutes are available at:
https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html

Draft policies and proposals are 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)


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Jul 31 00:53:02 2015
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:53:02 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201507310453.t6V4r338024378@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Jul 31 00:53:02 EDT 2015
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 50.00% |    1 | 53.58% |     7032 | narten at us.ibm.com
 50.00% |    1 | 46.42% |     6093 | info at arin.net
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    2 |100.00% |    13125 | Total