From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Apr  7 00:53:27 2017
From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:53:27 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201704070453.v374rRft024906@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Apr  7 00:53:22 EDT 2017
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    1 |100.00% |     8380 | narten at us.ibm.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    1 |100.00% |     8380 | Total



From robby at usdedicated.com  Mon Apr 10 15:04:43 2017
From: robby at usdedicated.com (Robby Hicks)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:43 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
Message-ID: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger block
of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing company.

During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the
financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is
completed.

What have other ISP's been doing for this, or is this something ARIN can
help facilitate?




Robby Hicks
President & CEO
US Dedicated
Direct: 844-533-1300 x101
Cell: 360-910-3548
www.usdedicated.com

This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and
may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the
information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply
e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
attachments.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/381f882f/attachment.htm>

From brent.mcintosh at cwc.com  Mon Apr 10 15:24:20 2017
From: brent.mcintosh at cwc.com (Brent McIntosh)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:24:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0604472D-7F7C-4286-8AFF-D90950CA8C92@lime.com>

Hi Robby,

Have you already applied to ARIN and qualified for a block in the size you wish to obtain via the other company?  I have just started a review of the NRPM to see what makes sense for this case.  I am sure you already reviewed it but I am still placing it here if that?s not the case. It may be possible to do this via transfer as outlined in NRPM 8.3

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight3

Will follow-up and see what are possible options.



Regards
Brent Mc Intosh
Head of IP/MPLS Operations
brent.mcintosh at cwc.com | Office: 1-473-441-2360 | Mob: 1-473-405-2360
Mt. Hartman, St. George?s Grenada
www.cwc.com<http://www.cwc.com/>

"the longer we fail to detect the failure, the longer the network is failed".




From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com>
Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP

Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing company.

During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is completed.

What have other ISP's been doing for this, or is this something ARIN can help facilitate?




Robby Hicks
President & CEO
US Dedicated
Direct: 844-533-1300 x101
Cell: 360-910-3548
www.usdedicated.com<http://www.usdedicated.com>

This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/684dc5e3/attachment.htm>

From robby at usdedicated.com  Mon Apr 10 15:33:20 2017
From: robby at usdedicated.com (Robby Hicks)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:33:20 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <0604472D-7F7C-4286-8AFF-D90950CA8C92@lime.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0604472D-7F7C-4286-8AFF-D90950CA8C92@lime.com>
Message-ID: <CALcfrQmCNrURp4uQNzbfZowH1fgBK3VtkW0DE2Zg0+Be9vm73Q@mail.gmail.com>

Yes we're pre-qualified for all the IP we are looking to purchase, and we
have done several 8.3 transfers already, however in this case with the size
of the block / cost we must finance it out.  This issue financing companies
have, is in the event of default, they would have no recourse other than
legal action if the IP are under our ownership already.

Robby Hicks
President & CEO
US Dedicated
Direct: 844-533-1300 x101
Cell: 360-910-3548
www.usdedicated.com

This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and
may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the
information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply
e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
attachments.  Thank you.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Brent McIntosh <brent.mcintosh at cwc.com>
wrote:

> Hi Robby,
>
>
>
> Have you already applied to ARIN and qualified for a block in the size you
> wish to obtain via the other company?  I have just started a review of the
> NRPM to see what makes sense for this case.  I am sure you already reviewed
> it but I am still placing it here if that?s not the case. It may be
> possible to do this via transfer as outlined in NRPM 8.3
>
>
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight3
>
>
>
> Will follow-up and see what are possible options.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> *Brent Mc Intosh*
>
> *Head of IP/MPLS Operations*
>
> brent.mcintosh at cwc.com | Office: 1-473-441-2360 <(473)%20441-2360> | Mob:
> 1-473-405-2360 <(473)%20405-2360>
>
> Mt. Hartman, St. George?s Grenada
>
> *www.cwc.com <http://www.cwc.com/>*
>
>
>
> *"the longer we fail to detect the failure, the longer the network is
> failed"*.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Robby Hicks <
> robby at usdedicated.com>
> *Date: *Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM
> *To: *"arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject: *[arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
>
>
>
> Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger
> block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing
> company.
>
>
>
> During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the
> financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is
> completed.
>
>
>
> What have other ISP's been doing for this, or is this something ARIN can
> help facilitate?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robby Hicks
> President & CEO
> US Dedicated
> Direct: 844-533-1300 x101 <(844)%20533-1300>
> Cell: 360-910-3548 <(360)%20910-3548>
> www.usdedicated.com
>
>
>
> This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and
> may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the
> information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply
> e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
> attachments.  Thank you.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/a7f76dfc/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Apr 10 15:34:31 2017
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:34:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5M0YOd8ob=heFok6QF5NnZMGmrG_t8vvTVeuMgjJCOW4g@mail.gmail.com>

Depending upon who your broker is, there should be an escrow function built
into the transaction. The question on ownership at different steps in the
process is a good one for both a broker and a lawyer. Financing an
intangible asset will weigh heavily on the value, what level of risk, and
over what time period. I don't know for sure, but I'll speculate that
there's a high risk premium on financing v4 addresses so you may want to
explore as many avenues as possible to avoid this. Like comparing the cost
to using IPv6 instead.

I originally thought brokers would be less than helpful in the process. I
changed my mind. They are helpful. It's much like buying a house and using
a RE broker with experience to walk you through the process and the
important bits. Issues like chain of custody, proper escrow procedures,
warranties and space attributes are key components of a sale and they are
providing a service in exchange for their fees that is probably worth it
all considered.

I know at least one service that is financing v4 address purchases that may
be able to help you. Contact me offline for an intro.

Best,

-M<



On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com> wrote:

> Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger
> block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing
> company.
>
> During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the
> financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is
> completed.
>
> What have other ISP's been doing for this, or is this something ARIN can
> help facilitate?
>
>
>
>
> Robby Hicks
> President & CEO
> US Dedicated
> Direct: 844-533-1300 x101
> Cell: 360-910-3548
> www.usdedicated.com
>
> This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and
> may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the
> information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply
> e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
> attachments.  Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170410/fa38bf06/attachment.htm>

From brent.mcintosh at cwc.com  Mon Apr 10 15:37:04 2017
From: brent.mcintosh at cwc.com (Brent McIntosh)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:37:04 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CALcfrQmCNrURp4uQNzbfZowH1fgBK3VtkW0DE2Zg0+Be9vm73Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0604472D-7F7C-4286-8AFF-D90950CA8C92@lime.com>
 <CALcfrQmCNrURp4uQNzbfZowH1fgBK3VtkW0DE2Zg0+Be9vm73Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <81A50524-A4E4-45E3-A325-8BF12BB7C17E@lime.com>

That?s an interesting case but I fully understand now. I will defer to members of the ARIN ppml to feedback on this request. I will do some further checks as well.


Regards
Brent

From: Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com>
Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:33 PM
To: "brent.mcintosh at cwc.com" <brent.mcintosh at cwc.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP

Yes we're pre-qualified for all the IP we are looking to purchase, and we have done several 8.3 transfers already, however in this case with the size of the block / cost we must finance it out.  This issue financing companies have, is in the event of default, they would have no recourse other than legal action if the IP are under our ownership already.

Robby Hicks
President & CEO
US Dedicated
Direct: 844-533-1300 x101
Cell: 360-910-3548
www.usdedicated.com<http://www.usdedicated.com>

This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments.  Thank you.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Brent McIntosh <brent.mcintosh at cwc.com<mailto:brent.mcintosh at cwc.com>> wrote:
Hi Robby,

Have you already applied to ARIN and qualified for a block in the size you wish to obtain via the other company?  I have just started a review of the NRPM to see what makes sense for this case.  I am sure you already reviewed it but I am still placing it here if that?s not the case. It may be possible to do this via transfer as outlined in NRPM 8.3

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight3

Will follow-up and see what are possible options.



Regards
Brent Mc Intosh
Head of IP/MPLS Operations
brent.mcintosh at cwc.com<mailto:brent.mcintosh at cwc.com> | Office: 1-473-441-2360<tel:(473)%20441-2360> | Mob: 1-473-405-2360<tel:(473)%20405-2360>
Mt. Hartman, St. George?s Grenada
www.cwc.com<http://www.cwc.com/>

"the longer we fail to detect the failure, the longer the network is failed".




From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> on behalf of Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com<mailto:robby at usdedicated.com>>
Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP

Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing company.

During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is completed.

What have other ISP's been doing for this, or is this something ARIN can help facilitate?




Robby Hicks
President & CEO
US Dedicated
Direct: 844-533-1300 x101<tel:(844)%20533-1300>
Cell: 360-910-3548<tel:(360)%20910-3548>
www.usdedicated.com<http://www.usdedicated.com>

This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or  privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying use or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments.  Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/ba43d7b6/attachment.htm>

From info at arin.net  Mon Apr 10 16:35:25 2017
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:35:25 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2017
Message-ID: <58EBEC8D.4080809@arin.net>

In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory 
Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017.



The AC has advanced the following Recommended Draft Policies to Last 
Call (each will be posted separately):

* ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 
Transfers

* ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers



The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will 
be posted for discussion):

* ARIN-prop-236: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to 
be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement 
and suggested changes to Internet number resource policy text.



The AC abandoned the following:

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation 
Requirement

The AC provided the following statement:

"The AC abandoned Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8 for lack of support by the 
ARIN community. The AC believes Whois data issues raised in this policy 
should continue to be discussed and a new draft policy may emerge as a 
result of that work that better addresses community concerns."

Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The 
deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's 
draft meeting minutes are published.



The AC is continuing to work on:

* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers

* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks

* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation

* ARIN-prop-235: Clarify Generic References to "IP Addresses" in NRPM


The PDP 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,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


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


From bill at herrin.us  Mon Apr 10 16:35:59 2017
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:35:59 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGV0AGz-nncvvchgOWA_19oAgw8PWTkbPBCaKwJGS4OPQA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com> wrote:

> Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger
> block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing
> company.
>
> During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the
> financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is
> completed.
>

Hi Robby,

Contractually you do not own addresses allocated to you through ARIN's
transfer process. In the Registration Services Agreement you signed you
explicitly disclaimed ownership. There is no legal ownership, either by you
or a financing company. There might or might not be legal ownership by ARIN
-- that's not well defined by the courts yet.

Organizations receiving IP addresses from ARIN must demonstrate an
operational need. The financing company has no such need. Hence ARIN will
not accept them as the registrant lawfully entitled to control of the
address block.

To some extent you may be able to make binding legal promises to the
financing company with respect to facilitating a subsequent transfer should
you default on payments. A lawyer could help you figure out how. I'm
dubious about your luck talking the financing company in to it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/c30d8273/attachment.htm>

From info at arin.net  Mon Apr 10 16:39:04 2017
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:39:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
 Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
Message-ID: <58EBED68.4020509@arin.net>

On 05 April 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
"ARIN-prop-236: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers" 
as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft 
policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as 
stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these 
principles are:

  * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
  * Technically Sound
  * Supported by the Community

The PDP 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,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR 
Transfers

Problem Statement:

AFRINIC and LACNIC are currently considering one-way inter-RIR transfer 
proposals. Those RIR communities feel a one-way policy a policy that 
allows network operators in their regions to obtain space from another 
region and transfer it into AFRINIC and LACNIC may best meet the needs 
of the operators in that region.

ARIN staff, in reply to an inquiry from AFRINIC, have formally indicated 
that ARINs 8.4 policy language will not allow ARIN to participate in 
such one-way transfers. The staff formally indicate to AFRINIC that the 
word reciprocal in 8.4 prohibits ARIN from allowing ARIN-registered 
space to transfer directly to AFRINIC (in this context).

ARIN as a community should recognize that other RIR operator communities 
have different needs than we do. We should recognize that:

- network operators in AFRINIC in LACNIC have need to obtain space in 
the market;

- have reasons they think are important to not allow two-way transfers; and

- we should understand that the history of the RIR system has led to 
LACNIC and AFRINIC having multiple orders of magnitude less IPv4 address 
space than ARIN does.

Policy statement:

Add the following sentence after the first sentence of NRPM 8.4:

Inter-regional transfers may take place to an RIR without a reciprocal 
inter-regional transfer policy only when the recipient RIR has less IPv4 
address space in its inventory than the global average of RIR IPv4 
address inventories.

Timetable for implementation: Upon the ratification of any inter-RIR 
transfer policy at another RIR that is one-way as described in the 
problem statement.


From info at arin.net  Mon Apr 10 16:41:58 2017
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:41:58 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
Message-ID: <58EBEE16.30702@arin.net>

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria 
for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will
expire on 24 April 2017.

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

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

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria 
for justifying small IPv4 transfers

AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy

This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number 
policy by allowing transfers to specified recipients of blocks of a 
certain size to occur without a needs assessment performed by ARIN 
staff. The Staff and Legal Assessment raised no material issues, and 
there has been consistent support on both the mailing list and at the 
Dallas ARIN meeintg for incorporating this mechanism into NRPM.

Problem Statement:

ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need 
requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that 
section was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is 
much more complicated than is really necessary for transfers.

This proposal allows organizations using 80% of their current space to 
double their current holdings via 8.3 or 8.4 specified transfers, up to 
a /16 equivalent.

Policy text:

Add a new section:

8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria

In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional 
IPv4 address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently 
allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more 
transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address 
holdings, with a maximum size of /16.

An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in 
any 6 month period.


From info at arin.net  Mon Apr 10 16:45:56 2017
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:45:56 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9:
 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers
Message-ID: <58EBEF04.7050109@arin.net>

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition 
Transfers

The AC provided the following statement:

"In its meeting on 05-APR-2017, the ARIN AC voted to advance 2016-9 
Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers to Last Call, with the 
following changes:

In the "list of conditions for clarity", strike the word "additional" 
and change "an" to "a", so that the revised text reads: "The Internet 
number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 transfer will not 
be subject to a needs-based assessment during the process of the 8.2 
transfer."

Concern was expressed by members of the community at the microphone at 
ARIN 39, and echoed by Staff, that the word "additional" was likely to 
confuse casual readers. The prevailing opinion was that its removal 
would result in greater clarity without affecting the plain meaning of 
the policy statement. Removal of "additional" necessitated changing "an" 
to "a" for grammatical correctness."

Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will
expire on 24 April 2017.

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

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

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition 
Transfers

AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy

The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number 
policy by ensuring that new organizations involved in mergers and 
acquisitions may conduct such activities with a reduced procedural 
burden from ARIN. The staff and legal review noted three issues, all of 
which have been addressed. There is support for the proposal on PPML and 
concerns that have been raised by the community regarding the proposal 
on PPML or elsewhere have also been addressed.

Problem Statement:

In some 8.2 transfer situations, the current policy has the unwanted 
side effect of encouraging organizations not to update registration 
data, thus leaving the number resource in the name of a now defunct entity.

It is not uncommon for an entity which has bought another entity (with 
existing number resources) to leave Organizational data (Whois) in the 
name of the acquired company. The requirements in Section 8.2 put a 
justification burden on the acquiring organization, which was a 
legitimate protection while free pool assignments were available. It is 
worth revisiting Section 8.2 and looking for opportunities to simplify 
the policy in the interest of improving the registry data.

Consider the following:

1. In the case where both organizations (acquirer, acquired) have 
justified their existing number resources from an issuer (e.g. SRI-NIC, 
GSI, ARIN) under the policies that were in force at the time of 
issuance, the number resources have already been justified once.

2. ARIN does not customarily require organizations holding address space 
to document utilization except when they are asking ARIN to issue more 
space.

3. Section 8.2 M&A is not asking ARIN to issue more space or provide 
authorization to acquire space in an 8.3 transfer. It is simply updating 
ARIN's database to reflect the current reality, that control of a 
company has changed.

Language that speaks of required return or transfer of space is of 
questionable enforceability in the context of the current RSA (section 
6, "ARIN has no right to revoke any Included Number Resources under this 
Agreement due to lack of utilization by Holder").

Clauses that serve to scare organizations away from updating their 
information are counter to the goal of maintaining good data in Whois.
Policy should allow ARIN staff to concentrate finite resources on 
ascertaining  chain of custody so as to minimize the chance of 
fraudulent transfers rather than auditing space already issued.

Policy statement:

Delete the bullet point in NRPM 8.2 that reads:

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.

Add this statement to list of conditions for clarity:

"The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 
transfer will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the 
process of the 8.2 transfer."

Add this conditional to the bottom of 8.2 for linguistic clarity:

"AND one or more of the following:

The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets 
that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.

OR

The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which 
is the current registrant."

Remove the following paragraph from Section 8.2 of the NRPM:

ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the number 
resources of the combined organizations exceed what can be justified 
under current ARIN transfer policy as defined in section 8.5. In that 
event, ARIN will work with the resource holder(s) to transfer the extra 
number resources to other organization(s) or accept a voluntary return 
of the extra number resources to ARIN.

These four changes will leave Section 8.2 looking like this:

8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions

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.

The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 
transfer will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the 
process of the 8.2 transfer.

AND one or more of the following:

The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets 
that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.

OR

The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which 
is the current registrant.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate


From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Apr 10 16:46:38 2017
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:46:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV0AGz-nncvvchgOWA_19oAgw8PWTkbPBCaKwJGS4OPQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-guGV0AGz-nncvvchgOWA_19oAgw8PWTkbPBCaKwJGS4OPQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5NzjfpceXX5kQQfTzeoML2UqFutLBpkNYz4yxzX9iQ+dw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:35 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger
>> block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing
>> company.
>>
>> During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the
>> financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is
>> completed.
>>
>
> Hi Robby,
>
> Contractually you do not own addresses allocated to you through ARIN's
> transfer process. In the Registration Services Agreement you signed you
> explicitly disclaimed ownership. There is no legal ownership, either by you
> or a financing company. There might or might not be legal ownership by ARIN
> -- that's not well defined by the courts yet.
>
>
'Ownership' can be achieved. In terms of his question about financing, its
an interesting request. It is possible to acquire space and if you properly
engage "A" $RIR, you could well call it an asset. One won't be able to
finance a debt position in it otherwise AFAIK since if it's not property
and you don't own it you can't collateralize it.

Organizations receiving IP addresses from ARIN must demonstrate an
> operational need. The financing company has no such need. Hence ARIN will
> not accept them as the registrant lawfully entitled to control of the
> address block.
>
> To some extent you may be able to make binding legal promises to the
> financing company with respect to facilitating a subsequent transfer should
> you default on payments. A lawyer could help you figure out how. I'm
> dubious about your luck talking the financing company in to it.
>
>
Or acquire assets in $REGION to satisfy the need for a financier to be able
to take a debt position in an asset.  Hard pressed to believe anyone is
going to finance anything but ERX/legacy addresses and only outside of the
ARIN region.

*But then.. reputable and knowledgeable broker. Or... v6. <---*

YMMV.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/3a103d05/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Apr 10 17:05:10 2017
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:05:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NzjfpceXX5kQQfTzeoML2UqFutLBpkNYz4yxzX9iQ+dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-guGV0AGz-nncvvchgOWA_19oAgw8PWTkbPBCaKwJGS4OPQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMDXq5NzjfpceXX5kQQfTzeoML2UqFutLBpkNYz4yxzX9iQ+dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64C02A72-7C6D-4311-AD04-1825333EA2CA@delong.com>

I can?t imagine a financial institution in their right mind taking IPv4 addresses as collateral on a loan (which would be the only 
reason for the ?ownership? issue described).

Owen

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 13:46 , Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:35 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Robby Hicks <robby at usdedicated.com <mailto:robby at usdedicated.com>> wrote:
> Hey guys, quick question for you here. We are looking to buy a larger block of IP's, however we need to finance this out through a financing company. 
> 
> During the financing term, ownership of the IP would need to be by the financial institution, then transferred to our account after buyout is completed.
> 
> Hi Robby,
> 
> Contractually you do not own addresses allocated to you through ARIN's transfer process. In the Registration Services Agreement you signed you explicitly disclaimed ownership. There is no legal ownership, either by you or a financing company. There might or might not be legal ownership by ARIN -- that's not well defined by the courts yet. 
> 
> 
> 'Ownership' can be achieved. In terms of his question about financing, its an interesting request. It is possible to acquire space and if you properly engage "A" $RIR, you could well call it an asset. One won't be able to finance a debt position in it otherwise AFAIK since if it's not property and you don't own it you can't collateralize it. 
> 
> Organizations receiving IP addresses from ARIN must demonstrate an operational need. The financing company has no such need. Hence ARIN will not accept them as the registrant lawfully entitled to control of the address block.
> 
> To some extent you may be able to make binding legal promises to the financing company with respect to facilitating a subsequent transfer should you default on payments. A lawyer could help you figure out how. I'm dubious about your luck talking the financing company in to it.
> 
> 
> Or acquire assets in $REGION to satisfy the need for a financier to be able to take a debt position in an asset.  Hard pressed to believe anyone is going to finance anything but ERX/legacy addresses and only outside of the ARIN region. But then.. reputable and knowledgeable broker. 
> 
> Or... v6. <---
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/7ff04b58/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Mon Apr 10 17:08:13 2017
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:08:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Accounts for Financing / Leasing IP
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NzjfpceXX5kQQfTzeoML2UqFutLBpkNYz4yxzX9iQ+dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcfrQmzYbL3_DZoL2qVf6eF7V4MztBNNJKSMic8DXXudfM3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-guGV0AGz-nncvvchgOWA_19oAgw8PWTkbPBCaKwJGS4OPQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMDXq5NzjfpceXX5kQQfTzeoML2UqFutLBpkNYz4yxzX9iQ+dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUBKN4SGWqS95McrwkurEk5vqar3D9jNX_Rwudjq0uMYA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:35 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>> Contractually you do not own addresses allocated to you through ARIN's
>> transfer process. In the Registration Services Agreement you signed you
>> explicitly disclaimed ownership. There is no legal ownership, either by you
>> or a financing company. There might or might not be legal ownership by ARIN
>> -- that's not well defined by the courts yet.
>>
>
> 'Ownership' can be achieved.
>

Hi Marty,

I think so too but I'd be hard pressed to identify anyone who has ever
established clear-title ownership of an ARIN block of IP addresses.

Bankruptcy cases have established that IP addresses are assets with
monetary value suitable for disposal in the proceedings. It's not a long
trek from there to "documentary intangible property." But no court that I
know of has ever directly ruled that addresses are property as understood
by the law and as a transfer recipient you contractually disclaim the right
to assert that the addresses you received in the transfer are your property,


In terms of his question about financing, its an interesting request.
>

Borrow against something else to fund the address purchase.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/eb8b2cb6/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr 10 17:10:44 2017
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:10:44 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
 Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
In-Reply-To: <58EBED68.4020509@arin.net>
References: <58EBED68.4020509@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz78akxcVX-q_xvQY+DatUx4W+_qn65xn=R-Q5Ld3hpmcA@mail.gmail.com>

I support this draft policy in principle, and am OK with it as written, as
I think it accomplishes the laudable goal of allowing IPv4 transfers to
more organizations who need them.

I do have one quibble, which is that the "only when" language seems to be
premised on the idea that each region should have similar numbers of IP
addresses *per region*.  Since addresses are not used by RIRs, but by
networks serving end users, I think this is an extremely artificial
construction, and is unnecessary.  I would prefer that the "only when"
language be removed, or replaced with language measuring something
meaningful, like IPv4 addresses per capita.  That said, I do *not* oppose
this proposal on those grounds, as long as the practical effect remains
that it opens up inter-RIR transfers to LACNIC and AfriNIC (the only two
RIRs who can't receive such transfers today).

-Scott

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> On 05 April 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-236:
> Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated
> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>
>  * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>  * Technically Sound
>  * Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP 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,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR
> Transfers
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> AFRINIC and LACNIC are currently considering one-way inter-RIR transfer
> proposals. Those RIR communities feel a one-way policy a policy that allows
> network operators in their regions to obtain space from another region and
> transfer it into AFRINIC and LACNIC may best meet the needs of the
> operators in that region.
>
> ARIN staff, in reply to an inquiry from AFRINIC, have formally indicated
> that ARINs 8.4 policy language will not allow ARIN to participate in such
> one-way transfers. The staff formally indicate to AFRINIC that the word
> reciprocal in 8.4 prohibits ARIN from allowing ARIN-registered space to
> transfer directly to AFRINIC (in this context).
>
> ARIN as a community should recognize that other RIR operator communities
> have different needs than we do. We should recognize that:
>
> - network operators in AFRINIC in LACNIC have need to obtain space in the
> market;
>
> - have reasons they think are important to not allow two-way transfers; and
>
> - we should understand that the history of the RIR system has led to
> LACNIC and AFRINIC having multiple orders of magnitude less IPv4 address
> space than ARIN does.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Add the following sentence after the first sentence of NRPM 8.4:
>
> Inter-regional transfers may take place to an RIR without a reciprocal
> inter-regional transfer policy only when the recipient RIR has less IPv4
> address space in its inventory than the global average of RIR IPv4 address
> inventories.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Upon the ratification of any inter-RIR
> transfer policy at another RIR that is one-way as described in the problem
> statement.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170410/8acdb90f/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr 10 17:12:19 2017
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:12:19 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <58EBEE16.30702@arin.net>
References: <58EBEE16.30702@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz6eM0m_Ou+Cq8w55EBsqRNpfOgna+X2ewcNDw29sTDNZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Support.

-Scott

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will
> expire on 24 April 2017.
>
> The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria for
> justifying small IPv4 transfers
>
> AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy
>
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by allowing transfers to specified recipients of blocks of a certain
> size to occur without a needs assessment performed by ARIN staff. The Staff
> and Legal Assessment raised no material issues, and there has been
> consistent support on both the mailing list and at the Dallas ARIN meeintg
> for incorporating this mechanism into NRPM.
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need
> requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section
> was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more
> complicated than is really necessary for transfers.
>
> This proposal allows organizations using 80% of their current space to
> double their current holdings via 8.3 or 8.4 specified transfers, up to a
> /16 equivalent.
>
> Policy text:
>
> Add a new section:
>
> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>
> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
> with a maximum size of /16.
>
> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> any 6 month period.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170410/23d86b20/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr 10 17:12:38 2017
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:12:38 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9:
 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers
In-Reply-To: <58EBEF04.7050109@arin.net>
References: <58EBEF04.7050109@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz4cMA4E=QO-fR6azP=zA1_fJp4ZpCb_B1u9JRbywAiYoQ@mail.gmail.com>

Support.

-Scott

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:45 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition
> Transfers
>
> The AC provided the following statement:
>
> "In its meeting on 05-APR-2017, the ARIN AC voted to advance 2016-9
> Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers to Last Call, with the following
> changes:
>
> In the "list of conditions for clarity", strike the word "additional" and
> change "an" to "a", so that the revised text reads: "The Internet number
> resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 transfer will not be subject
> to a needs-based assessment during the process of the 8.2 transfer."
>
> Concern was expressed by members of the community at the microphone at
> ARIN 39, and echoed by Staff, that the word "additional" was likely to
> confuse casual readers. The prevailing opinion was that its removal would
> result in greater clarity without affecting the plain meaning of the policy
> statement. Removal of "additional" necessitated changing "an" to "a" for
> grammatical correctness."
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will
> expire on 24 April 2017.
>
> The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition
> Transfers
>
> AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy
>
> The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by ensuring that new organizations involved in mergers and
> acquisitions may conduct such activities with a reduced procedural burden
> from ARIN. The staff and legal review noted three issues, all of which have
> been addressed. There is support for the proposal on PPML and concerns that
> have been raised by the community regarding the proposal on PPML or
> elsewhere have also been addressed.
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> In some 8.2 transfer situations, the current policy has the unwanted side
> effect of encouraging organizations not to update registration data, thus
> leaving the number resource in the name of a now defunct entity.
>
> It is not uncommon for an entity which has bought another entity (with
> existing number resources) to leave Organizational data (Whois) in the name
> of the acquired company. The requirements in Section 8.2 put a
> justification burden on the acquiring organization, which was a legitimate
> protection while free pool assignments were available. It is worth
> revisiting Section 8.2 and looking for opportunities to simplify the policy
> in the interest of improving the registry data.
>
> Consider the following:
>
> 1. In the case where both organizations (acquirer, acquired) have
> justified their existing number resources from an issuer (e.g. SRI-NIC,
> GSI, ARIN) under the policies that were in force at the time of issuance,
> the number resources have already been justified once.
>
> 2. ARIN does not customarily require organizations holding address space
> to document utilization except when they are asking ARIN to issue more
> space.
>
> 3. Section 8.2 M&A is not asking ARIN to issue more space or provide
> authorization to acquire space in an 8.3 transfer. It is simply updating
> ARIN's database to reflect the current reality, that control of a company
> has changed.
>
> Language that speaks of required return or transfer of space is of
> questionable enforceability in the context of the current RSA (section 6,
> "ARIN has no right to revoke any Included Number Resources under this
> Agreement due to lack of utilization by Holder").
>
> Clauses that serve to scare organizations away from updating their
> information are counter to the goal of maintaining good data in Whois.
> Policy should allow ARIN staff to concentrate finite resources on
> ascertaining  chain of custody so as to minimize the chance of fraudulent
> transfers rather than auditing space already issued.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Delete the bullet point in NRPM 8.2 that reads:
>
> 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.
>
> Add this statement to list of conditions for clarity:
>
> "The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2
> transfer will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the process
> of the 8.2 transfer."
>
> Add this conditional to the bottom of 8.2 for linguistic clarity:
>
> "AND one or more of the following:
>
> The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets
> that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.
>
> OR
>
> The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which is
> the current registrant."
>
> Remove the following paragraph from Section 8.2 of the NRPM:
>
> ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the number
> resources of the combined organizations exceed what can be justified under
> current ARIN transfer policy as defined in section 8.5. In that event, ARIN
> will work with the resource holder(s) to transfer the extra number
> resources to other organization(s) or accept a voluntary return of the
> extra number resources to ARIN.
>
> These four changes will leave Section 8.2 looking like this:
>
> 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions
>
> 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.
>
> The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 transfer
> will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the process of the
> 8.2 transfer.
>
> AND one or more of the following:
>
> The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets
> that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.
>
> OR
>
> The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which is
> the current registrant.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170410/b2a6915c/attachment.htm>

From mike at iptrading.com  Mon Apr 10 17:20:14 2017
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:20:14 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
 Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz78akxcVX-q_xvQY+DatUx4W+_qn65xn=R-Q5Ld3hpmcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <58EBED68.4020509@arin.net>
 <CAGkMwz78akxcVX-q_xvQY+DatUx4W+_qn65xn=R-Q5Ld3hpmcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <044601d2b240$3f015a30$bd040e90$@iptrading.com>

I support the proposal but would prefer the simple removal of the world ?reciprocal? from 8.4.

The other language is clutter that we don?t need in the NRPM, IMO.

 

Regards,
Mike Burns

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:11 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

 

I support this draft policy in principle, and am OK with it as written, as I think it accomplishes the laudable goal of allowing IPv4 transfers to more organizations who need them.

 

I do have one quibble, which is that the "only when" language seems to be premised on the idea that each region should have similar numbers of IP addresses *per region*.  Since addresses are not used by RIRs, but by networks serving end users, I think this is an extremely artificial construction, and is unnecessary.  I would prefer that the "only when" language be removed, or replaced with language measuring something meaningful, like IPv4 addresses per capita.  That said, I do *not* oppose this proposal on those grounds, as long as the practical effect remains that it opens up inter-RIR transfers to LACNIC and AfriNIC (the only two RIRs who can't receive such transfers today).

 

-Scott

 

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> > wrote:

On 05 April 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-236: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:

 * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
 * Technically Sound
 * Supported by the Community

The PDP 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,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

Problem Statement:

AFRINIC and LACNIC are currently considering one-way inter-RIR transfer proposals. Those RIR communities feel a one-way policy a policy that allows network operators in their regions to obtain space from another region and transfer it into AFRINIC and LACNIC may best meet the needs of the operators in that region.

ARIN staff, in reply to an inquiry from AFRINIC, have formally indicated that ARINs 8.4 policy language will not allow ARIN to participate in such one-way transfers. The staff formally indicate to AFRINIC that the word reciprocal in 8.4 prohibits ARIN from allowing ARIN-registered space to transfer directly to AFRINIC (in this context).

ARIN as a community should recognize that other RIR operator communities have different needs than we do. We should recognize that:

- network operators in AFRINIC in LACNIC have need to obtain space in the market;

- have reasons they think are important to not allow two-way transfers; and

- we should understand that the history of the RIR system has led to LACNIC and AFRINIC having multiple orders of magnitude less IPv4 address space than ARIN does.

Policy statement:

Add the following sentence after the first sentence of NRPM 8.4:

Inter-regional transfers may take place to an RIR without a reciprocal inter-regional transfer policy only when the recipient RIR has less IPv4 address space in its inventory than the global average of RIR IPv4 address inventories.

Timetable for implementation: Upon the ratification of any inter-RIR transfer policy at another RIR that is one-way as described in the problem statement.
_______________________________________________
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
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/20170410/59cba2e1/attachment.htm>

From cja at daydream.com  Thu Apr 13 16:12:13 2017
From: cja at daydream.com (Cj Aronson)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:12:13 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
Message-ID: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>

Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and
article) was posted to the RIPE policy list.  This policy being discussed
in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen
so far.  I thought you all might be interested in reading the text.   It
basically restricts access to IP addresses to governments who shut down
Internet access.

https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01

The article about the proposal is here
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/

Enjoy!
----Cathy

{?,?}
  (( ))
  ?  ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170413/a4f1369b/attachment.htm>

From susannah.gray at gmail.com  Thu Apr 13 16:34:39 2017
From: susannah.gray at gmail.com (Susannah Gray)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:34:39 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92c3442c-aaaa-530c-8e22-734e7361e39f@gmail.com>

Hi all,

There has already been a lot of discussion about this proposal on the 
AFRINIC Resource Policy Discussion (rpd) mailing list:

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/date.html

Interestingly, the policy proposal was co-authored by a current AFRINIC 
Board member.

Susannah



On 13/04/2017 13:12, Cj Aronson wrote:
> Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and 
> article) was posted to the RIPE policy list. This policy being 
> discussed in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any 
> proposal I have seen so far.  I thought you all might be interested in 
> reading the text.   It basically restricts access to IP addresses to 
> governments who shut down Internet access.
>
> https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01
>
> The article about the proposal is here
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/
>
> Enjoy!
> ----Cathy
>
> {?,?}
> (( ))
> ?  ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Susannah Gray
Communications Consultant | Writer | Editor
www.susegray.com
-
President & Chair
San Francisco-Bay Area Internet Society Chapter
www.sfbayisoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170413/2b061885/attachment.htm>

From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Apr 14 00:53:22 2017
From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:53:22 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201704140453.v3E4rMWZ007165@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 20 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Apr 14 00:53:17 EDT 2017
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 15.00% |    3 | 18.58% |    54128 | scottleibrand at gmail.com
 20.00% |    4 | 11.99% |    34909 | info at arin.net
 10.00% |    2 | 19.54% |    56898 | brent.mcintosh at cwc.com
 10.00% |    2 | 10.43% |    30379 | robby at usdedicated.com
 10.00% |    2 |  9.38% |    27332 | hannigan at gmail.com
 10.00% |    2 |  7.59% |    22095 | bill at herrin.us
  5.00% |    1 |  6.89% |    20068 | mike at iptrading.com
  5.00% |    1 |  5.06% |    14741 | owen at delong.com
  5.00% |    1 |  4.51% |    13135 | susannah.gray at gmail.com
  5.00% |    1 |  3.23% |     9405 | cja at daydream.com
  5.00% |    1 |  2.80% |     8157 | narten at us.ibm.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   20 |100.00% |   291247 | Total



From calderon.alfredo at gmail.com  Fri Apr 14 08:48:10 2017
From: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com (Alfredo Calderon)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:48:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHnnO88wvwoL5JZm-YmjV8MthrQ2t6naEiqZe_a9WM4GH=HHNw@mail.gmail.com>

The discussion is very interesting and, could have consequences in ARIN if
reciprocity policies are adopted among RIR?


[image: photo]
*Alfredo Calderon*
eLearning Consultant
calderon.alfredo at gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype:
Alfredo_1212 <#> | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
<http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo>
<http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52>
<http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts>
<http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon>
<http://klout.com/#/acalderon52> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon>
Get a signature like this: Click here!
<http://ws-promos.appspot.com/r?rdata=eyJydXJsIjogImh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2lzZXN0YW1wLmNvbS9lbWFpbC1pbnN0YWxsP3dzX25jaWQ9NjcyMjk0MDA4JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9ZXh0ZW5zaW9uJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXByb21vXzU3MzI1Njg1NDg3Njk3OTIiLCAiZSI6ICI1NzMyNTY4NTQ4NzY5NzkyIn0=&u=608801288331735>

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:

> Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and
> article) was posted to the RIPE policy list.  This policy being discussed
> in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen
> so far.  I thought you all might be interested in reading the text.   It
> basically restricts access to IP addresses to governments who shut down
> Internet access.
>
> https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/
> policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01
>
> The article about the proposal is here
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/
>
> Enjoy!
> ----Cathy
>
> {?,?}
>   (( ))
>   ?  ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170414/0077aa34/attachment.htm>

From bartlett.morgan at gmail.com  Sat Apr 15 08:12:11 2017
From: bartlett.morgan at gmail.com (Bartlett Morgan)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:12:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <CAHnnO88wvwoL5JZm-YmjV8MthrQ2t6naEiqZe_a9WM4GH=HHNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHnnO88wvwoL5JZm-YmjV8MthrQ2t6naEiqZe_a9WM4GH=HHNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqt3A1rLMd43vh-ZfE=A-AxfeYdWGUWirPpDFB=2tuGCPvYgg@mail.gmail.com>

Doesn't seem like the most workable policy to my novice eyes.

Is it really a good idea to convert RIRs into the internet police?

if we think it is a good idea, who decides what's a proper case for
implementation?

On Apr 14, 2017 8:48 AM, "Alfredo Calderon" <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The discussion is very interesting and, could have consequences in ARIN if
> reciprocity policies are adopted among RIR?
>
>
> [image: photo]
> *Alfredo Calderon*
> eLearning Consultant
> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype:
> Alfredo_1212 <#m_5497963137251269094_> | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
> <http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo>
> <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52>
> <http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts>
> <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/>
> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon> <http://klout.com/#/acalderon52>
> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon>
> Get a signature like this: Click here!
> <http://ws-promos.appspot.com/r?rdata=eyJydXJsIjogImh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2lzZXN0YW1wLmNvbS9lbWFpbC1pbnN0YWxsP3dzX25jaWQ9NjcyMjk0MDA4JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9ZXh0ZW5zaW9uJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXByb21vXzU3MzI1Njg1NDg3Njk3OTIiLCAiZSI6ICI1NzMyNTY4NTQ4NzY5NzkyIn0=&u=608801288331735>
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
>
>> Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and
>> article) was posted to the RIPE policy list.  This policy being discussed
>> in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen
>> so far.  I thought you all might be interested in reading the text.   It
>> basically restricts access to IP addresses to governments who shut down
>> Internet access.
>>
>> https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-
>> proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01
>>
>> The article about the proposal is here
>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/
>>
>> Enjoy!
>> ----Cathy
>>
>> {?,?}
>>   (( ))
>>   ?  ?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170415/25fa3837/attachment.htm>

From chinese.apricot at gmail.com  Sat Apr 15 08:34:24 2017
From: chinese.apricot at gmail.com (william manning)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 05:34:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <CAJqt3A1rLMd43vh-ZfE=A-AxfeYdWGUWirPpDFB=2tuGCPvYgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHnnO88wvwoL5JZm-YmjV8MthrQ2t6naEiqZe_a9WM4GH=HHNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqt3A1rLMd43vh-ZfE=A-AxfeYdWGUWirPpDFB=2tuGCPvYgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACfw2higKC-zz7anhM6S4z7mvkQyAuW=zN3F2km4DXjGTyNeVA@mail.gmail.com>

there is always the power of eminent domain to compel IP address
assignment, at least in the ARIN region.

/Wm

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Bartlett Morgan <bartlett.morgan at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Doesn't seem like the most workable policy to my novice eyes.
>
> Is it really a good idea to convert RIRs into the internet police?
>
> if we think it is a good idea, who decides what's a proper case for
> implementation?
>
> On Apr 14, 2017 8:48 AM, "Alfredo Calderon" <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The discussion is very interesting and, could have consequences in ARIN
>> if reciprocity policies are adopted among RIR?
>>
>>
>> [image: photo]
>> *Alfredo Calderon*
>> eLearning Consultant
>> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype:
>> Alfredo_1212 <#m_-5341507730212478669_m_5497963137251269094_> |
>> wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
>> <http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo>
>> <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52>
>> <http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts>
>> <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/>
>> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon> <http://klout.com/#/acalderon52>
>> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon>
>> Get a signature like this: Click here!
>> <http://ws-promos.appspot.com/r?rdata=eyJydXJsIjogImh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2lzZXN0YW1wLmNvbS9lbWFpbC1pbnN0YWxsP3dzX25jaWQ9NjcyMjk0MDA4JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9ZXh0ZW5zaW9uJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXByb21vXzU3MzI1Njg1NDg3Njk3OTIiLCAiZSI6ICI1NzMyNTY4NTQ4NzY5NzkyIn0=&u=608801288331735>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and
>>> article) was posted to the RIPE policy list.  This policy being discussed
>>> in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen
>>> so far.  I thought you all might be interested in reading the text.   It
>>> basically restricts access to IP addresses to governments who shut down
>>> Internet access.
>>>
>>> https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-p
>>> roposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01
>>>
>>> The article about the proposal is here
>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/
>>>
>>> Enjoy!
>>> ----Cathy
>>>
>>> {?,?}
>>>   (( ))
>>>   ?  ?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170415/40810b67/attachment.htm>

From marilson.mapa at gmail.com  Sat Apr 15 16:42:31 2017
From: marilson.mapa at gmail.com (Marilson)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:42:31 -0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <CAJqt3A1rLMd43vh-ZfE=A-AxfeYdWGUWirPpDFB=2tuGCPvYgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC6JZKTat6=G9pHmYUFMC=jJcuLGkc6wa-=7PUK6G+jn42XMPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHnnO88wvwoL5JZm-YmjV8MthrQ2t6naEiqZe_a9WM4GH=HHNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqt3A1rLMd43vh-ZfE=A-AxfeYdWGUWirPpDFB=2tuGCPvYgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <514554F69F084B0B8CEF2B65DC482D85@xPC>

Hi Morgan,

To my novice eyes, but tired and disappointed, I find it rather appropriate that the entity responsible for the management and allocation of IP address blocks adopt punitive measures against those who interfere in the free internet or in the inappropriate use of those services.

Who decides? The evidence. And the Internet community seems to be the only one capable of putting punitive measures into practice.

No matter who we are or what we do, commitment to democracy should always be part of our activities.

The owners of these resources is the population of the planet. RIRs manage these resources on behalf of this population and should effectively manage without omitting and transferring that responsibility to governments or to their ISP customers.

I say this because, just as there are autocratic governments, there are bad ISPs who arrogantly refuse to punish clients with illicit activities even in the face of evidence. And in the face of these bad providers, governments, without exception, turn a blind eye. They are more concerned about employment within their territory even at the expense of the population being the victim of spammers and scammers.

This situation explains and does not justify the 420 billion spam and scam per day (Cisco).

Never so few done so much harm to so many.

No more shutdowns.
No more denying access to information and knowledge.
No more bad ISPs.
Even with Trump!

Marilson


From: Bartlett Morgan 
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:12 AM
To: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com 
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC

Doesn't seem like the most workable policy to my novice eyes.  

Is it really a good idea to convert RIRs into the internet police? 

if we think it is a good idea, who decides what's a proper case for implementation?

On Apr 14, 2017 8:48 AM, "Alfredo Calderon" <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com> wrote:

  The discussion is very interesting and, could have consequences in ARIN if reciprocity policies are adopted among RIR?




           Alfredo Calderon
              eLearning Consultant  
              calderon.alfredo at gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212 | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon  
                          
             
       

   
  Get a signature like this: Click here! 

  On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:

    Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and article) was posted to the RIPE policy list.  This policy being discussed in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen so far.  I thought you all might be interested in reading the text.   It basically restricts access to IP addresses to governments who shut down Internet access.  

    https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01

    The article about the proposal is here
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/

    Enjoy! 
    ----Cathy


    {?,?}
      (( ))
      ?  ?

    _______________________________________________
    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/20170415/fac2f2ba/attachment.htm>

From jrl at lodden.com  Sun Apr 16 02:11:05 2017
From: jrl at lodden.com (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:11:05 +0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?look_what_I=27ve_found?=
Message-ID: <1782183135.20170416091105@lodden.com>

Hello! 

Look what I've just found on  the web, that  really cool, yeah, more info here  http://www.cartitalia.com/ahead.php?3938

Warmly, Leo Vegoda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170416/8e098320/attachment.htm>

From marilson.mapa at gmail.com  Sun Apr 16 03:03:30 2017
From: marilson.mapa at gmail.com (Marilson)
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 04:03:30 -0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] look what I've found
In-Reply-To: <1782183135.20170416091105@lodden.com>
References: <1782183135.20170416091105@lodden.com>
Message-ID: <22039B82293046AA99BD2E9E6F648A68@xPC>

Your *open link* is infected with malware...

      URL: http:// www. cartitalia. com/ ahead.php?3938 
      URL Scanner Result 
      G-Data Malware site 

Marilson

From: Leo Vegoda 
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 3:11 AM
To: Darren M. Kara ; arin-ppml ; Nate Davis 
Subject: [arin-ppml] look what I've found


Hello! 

 

Look what I've just found on the web, that really cool, yeah, more info here open link

 

Warmly, Leo Vegoda




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20170416/3385afb7/attachment.htm>

From jschiller at google.com  Tue Apr 18 15:49:46 2017
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:49:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <58EBEE16.30702@arin.net>
References: <58EBEE16.30702@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2WrD3AdGkpaGQWSx9urK4WpvUWJveO=W1-cCWFqufeDuA@mail.gmail.com>

support, especially with the sister policy ARIN-2017-1 to cover the few
orgs growing faster than a /15 per year.

___Jason

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:41 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will
> expire on 24 April 2017.
>
> The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria for
> justifying small IPv4 transfers
>
> AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy
>
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by allowing transfers to specified recipients of blocks of a certain
> size to occur without a needs assessment performed by ARIN staff. The Staff
> and Legal Assessment raised no material issues, and there has been
> consistent support on both the mailing list and at the Dallas ARIN meeintg
> for incorporating this mechanism into NRPM.
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need
> requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section
> was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more
> complicated than is really necessary for transfers.
>
> This proposal allows organizations using 80% of their current space to
> double their current holdings via 8.3 or 8.4 specified transfers, up to a
> /16 equivalent.
>
> Policy text:
>
> Add a new section:
>
> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>
> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
> with a maximum size of /16.
>
> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> any 6 month period.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170418/ac04b3ef/attachment.htm>

From jschiller at google.com  Tue Apr 18 15:51:38 2017
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:51:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9:
 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers
In-Reply-To: <58EBEF04.7050109@arin.net>
References: <58EBEF04.7050109@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2Woa4DCRAgek3DkhvzFCZ7J63bmn8xdzFRZC3OuK1ehyA@mail.gmail.com>

support.

(I don't know why there is the need to suggest support at this stage,
unless there is a need to add qualifying conditions for the record.  I
though this was to raise new objections that have been missed thus far, and
pending no significant ones it moves forward.)

___Jason

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:45 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition
> Transfers
>
> The AC provided the following statement:
>
> "In its meeting on 05-APR-2017, the ARIN AC voted to advance 2016-9
> Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers to Last Call, with the following
> changes:
>
> In the "list of conditions for clarity", strike the word "additional" and
> change "an" to "a", so that the revised text reads: "The Internet number
> resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 transfer will not be subject
> to a needs-based assessment during the process of the 8.2 transfer."
>
> Concern was expressed by members of the community at the microphone at
> ARIN 39, and echoed by Staff, that the word "additional" was likely to
> confuse casual readers. The prevailing opinion was that its removal would
> result in greater clarity without affecting the plain meaning of the policy
> statement. Removal of "additional" necessitated changing "an" to "a" for
> grammatical correctness."
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will
> expire on 24 April 2017.
>
> The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition
> Transfers
>
> AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy
>
> The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> policy by ensuring that new organizations involved in mergers and
> acquisitions may conduct such activities with a reduced procedural burden
> from ARIN. The staff and legal review noted three issues, all of which have
> been addressed. There is support for the proposal on PPML and concerns that
> have been raised by the community regarding the proposal on PPML or
> elsewhere have also been addressed.
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> In some 8.2 transfer situations, the current policy has the unwanted side
> effect of encouraging organizations not to update registration data, thus
> leaving the number resource in the name of a now defunct entity.
>
> It is not uncommon for an entity which has bought another entity (with
> existing number resources) to leave Organizational data (Whois) in the name
> of the acquired company. The requirements in Section 8.2 put a
> justification burden on the acquiring organization, which was a legitimate
> protection while free pool assignments were available. It is worth
> revisiting Section 8.2 and looking for opportunities to simplify the policy
> in the interest of improving the registry data.
>
> Consider the following:
>
> 1. In the case where both organizations (acquirer, acquired) have
> justified their existing number resources from an issuer (e.g. SRI-NIC,
> GSI, ARIN) under the policies that were in force at the time of issuance,
> the number resources have already been justified once.
>
> 2. ARIN does not customarily require organizations holding address space
> to document utilization except when they are asking ARIN to issue more
> space.
>
> 3. Section 8.2 M&A is not asking ARIN to issue more space or provide
> authorization to acquire space in an 8.3 transfer. It is simply updating
> ARIN's database to reflect the current reality, that control of a company
> has changed.
>
> Language that speaks of required return or transfer of space is of
> questionable enforceability in the context of the current RSA (section 6,
> "ARIN has no right to revoke any Included Number Resources under this
> Agreement due to lack of utilization by Holder").
>
> Clauses that serve to scare organizations away from updating their
> information are counter to the goal of maintaining good data in Whois.
> Policy should allow ARIN staff to concentrate finite resources on
> ascertaining  chain of custody so as to minimize the chance of fraudulent
> transfers rather than auditing space already issued.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Delete the bullet point in NRPM 8.2 that reads:
>
> 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.
>
> Add this statement to list of conditions for clarity:
>
> "The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2
> transfer will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the process
> of the 8.2 transfer."
>
> Add this conditional to the bottom of 8.2 for linguistic clarity:
>
> "AND one or more of the following:
>
> The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets
> that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.
>
> OR
>
> The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which is
> the current registrant."
>
> Remove the following paragraph from Section 8.2 of the NRPM:
>
> ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the number
> resources of the combined organizations exceed what can be justified under
> current ARIN transfer policy as defined in section 8.5. In that event, ARIN
> will work with the resource holder(s) to transfer the extra number
> resources to other organization(s) or accept a voluntary return of the
> extra number resources to ARIN.
>
> These four changes will leave Section 8.2 looking like this:
>
> 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions
>
> 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.
>
> The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 transfer
> will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the process of the
> 8.2 transfer.
>
> AND one or more of the following:
>
> The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets
> that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.
>
> OR
>
> The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which is
> the current registrant.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170418/ce67bd1e/attachment.htm>

From rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com  Tue Apr 18 20:01:05 2017
From: rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com (Brett Frankenberger)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:01:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
Message-ID: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>
> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
> with a maximum size of /16.
>
> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> any 6 month period.

Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
"allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
(both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)

Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.

I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.

     -- Brett


From owen at delong.com  Tue Apr 18 21:29:35 2017
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:29:35 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
References: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
Message-ID: <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>


> On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> 
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> 
>> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> 
>> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
>> with a maximum size of /16.
>> 
>> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> any 6 month period.
> 
> Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
> allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
> 
> Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
> 
> I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
> 
>     ? Brett

I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or assigned? added
to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this regard, it
is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the upcoming
AC meeting, nothing more.

Owen



From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Apr 18 21:54:17 2017
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:54:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>
References: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
 <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA@mail.gmail.com>

Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.

Best,

-M<


On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
> >>
> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
> for
> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
> >>
> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
> >>
> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
> IPv4
> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
> holdings,
> >> with a maximum size of /16.
> >>
> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> >> any 6 month period.
> >
> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
> >
> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
> >
> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
> >
> >     ? Brett
>
> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
> assigned? added
> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be
> an
> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
> regard, it
> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the
> upcoming
> AC meeting, nothing more.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170419/f69ac3ba/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr 18 22:24:29 2017
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:24:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
 <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>
 <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20CE1704-4948-4924-92BC-B349BFCE5E97@gmail.com>

+1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy intent as I understand it. 

Scott

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> >>
>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> >>
>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> >>
>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>> >>
>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> >> any 6 month period.
>> >
>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>> >
>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>> >
>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>> >
>> >     ? Brett
>> 
>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or assigned? added
>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this regard, it
>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the upcoming
>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170418/c0f7e4bd/attachment.htm>

From rudi.daniel at gmail.com  Tue Apr 18 22:46:53 2017
From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:46:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2016-3
In-Reply-To: <CA+uaoiX+OiJpYt+EpivN0vOh0htd-suOX=TeiwYVqtfL72NzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+uaoiX+OiJpYt+EpivN0vOh0htd-suOX=TeiwYVqtfL72NzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+uaoiUwE7umfyXj+44SeugrZ6MGt=PUMFp7bgJ6qrRyeEtgLg@mail.gmail.com>

I support the proposed as written.
rd

On Apr 18, 2017 10:25 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        arin-ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
      Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
      Transfers (Brett Frankenberger)
   2. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
      Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
      Transfers (Owen DeLong)
   3. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
      Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
      Transfers (Martin Hannigan)
   4. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
      Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
      Transfers (Scott Leibrand)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:01:05 -0500
From: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>
To: ARIN <info at arin.net>, "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
        ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
        Transfers
Message-ID: <20170419000105.GA1051 at panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>
> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
> with a maximum size of /16.
>
> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> any 6 month period.

Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
"allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
(both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)

Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.

I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.

     -- Brett


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:29:35 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
        ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
        Transfers
Message-ID: <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


> On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>
wrote:
>
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>>
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>>
>> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>>
>> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
>> with a maximum size of /16.
>>
>> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> any 6 month period.
>
> Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
> allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>
> Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>
> I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>
>     ? Brett

I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
assigned? added
to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
regard, it
is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the
upcoming
AC meeting, nothing more.

Owen



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:54:17 +0000
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
To: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>, Owen DeLong
        <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
        ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
        Transfers
Message-ID:
        <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.

Best,

-M<


On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
> >>
> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
> for
> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
> >>
> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
> >>
> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
> IPv4
> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
> holdings,
> >> with a maximum size of /16.
> >>
> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent
in
> >> any 6 month period.
> >
> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
> >
> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
> >
> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
> >
> >     ? Brett
>
> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
> assigned? added
> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be
> an
> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
> regard, it
> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the
> upcoming
> AC meeting, nothing more.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20170419/f69ac3ba/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:24:29 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
Cc: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com>, Owen DeLong
        <owen at delong.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
        ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
        Transfers
Message-ID: <20CE1704-4948-4924-92BC-B349BFCE5E97 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy
intent as I understand it.

Scott

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <
rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> >>
>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
for
>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> >>
>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> >>
>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
IPv4
>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>> >>
>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent
in
>> >> any 6 month period.
>> >
>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>> >
>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>> >
>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>> >
>> >     ? Brett
>>
>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
assigned? added
>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to
be an
>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
regard, it
>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in
the upcoming
>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20170418/c0f7e4bd/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

------------------------------

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 142, Issue 10
******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170418/9e6806a6/attachment.htm>

From jschiller at google.com  Wed Apr 19 11:11:14 2017
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:11:14 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <20CE1704-4948-4924-92BC-B349BFCE5E97@gmail.com>
References: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
 <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>
 <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20CE1704-4948-4924-92BC-B349BFCE5E97@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2WX+VjSuQQ5NuwYXJ+jKj7AfyNtGwLCwKpEzFOUFFO1vg@mail.gmail.com>

+1  allocated or assigned was indeed the intent.
I believe this is an editorial change.

I would make a call for anyone who either:
1. believes this is not an editorial change
2. would change their decision to no longer support.

___Jason

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy
> intent as I understand it.
>
> Scott
>
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <
>> rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> >>
>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
>> for
>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> >>
>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> >>
>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
>> IPv4
>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
>> holdings,
>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>> >>
>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent
>> in
>> >> any 6 month period.
>> >
>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>> >
>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>> >
>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>> >
>> >     ? Brett
>>
>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
>> assigned? added
>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be
>> an
>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
>> regard, it
>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the
>> upcoming
>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170419/75da03b0/attachment.htm>

From kirubel.m.tadesse at gmail.com  Wed Apr 19 11:17:38 2017
From: kirubel.m.tadesse at gmail.com (Kirubel Tadesse)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:17:38 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2WX+VjSuQQ5NuwYXJ+jKj7AfyNtGwLCwKpEzFOUFFO1vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
 <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>
 <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20CE1704-4948-4924-92BC-B349BFCE5E97@gmail.com>
 <CAC4yj2WX+VjSuQQ5NuwYXJ+jKj7AfyNtGwLCwKpEzFOUFFO1vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3BDC795C-6FDF-4722-AA38-EDD8419574FA@gmail.com>

Please remove me from the email list!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
> 
> +1  allocated or assigned was indeed the intent.  
> I believe this is an editorial change.
> 
> I would make a call for anyone who either:
> 1. believes this is not an editorial change
> 2. would change their decision to no longer support.
> 
> ___Jason
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy intent as I understand it. 
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> -M<
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>>>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>>>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>>>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>>>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>>>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
>>>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>>>> >> any 6 month period.
>>>> >
>>>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>>>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>>>> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>>>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>>>> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>>>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>>>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>>>> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>>>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
>>>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>>>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>>>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>>>> >
>>>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>>>> >
>>>> >     ? Brett
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or assigned? added
>>>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
>>>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this regard, it
>>>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the upcoming
>>>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170419/00f9d432/attachment.htm>

From josh at imaginenetworksllc.com  Wed Apr 19 11:18:53 2017
From: josh at imaginenetworksllc.com (Josh Luthman)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:18:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
In-Reply-To: <3BDC795C-6FDF-4722-AA38-EDD8419574FA@gmail.com>
References: <20170419000105.GA1051@panix.com>
 <6FB07699-24C2-4D1D-907A-883EF4B0F8FB@delong.com>
 <CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yVKdcGp3+nedLJfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20CE1704-4948-4924-92BC-B349BFCE5E97@gmail.com>
 <CAC4yj2WX+VjSuQQ5NuwYXJ+jKj7AfyNtGwLCwKpEzFOUFFO1vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3BDC795C-6FDF-4722-AA38-EDD8419574FA@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN9qwJ8sDBmVA+URaAScD9hDQ5dkPdaUXYet5FogkM4RyOGCzg@mail.gmail.com>

You can do it yourself if you read the envelope:

List-Id: Public Policy Mailing List <arin-ppml.arin.net>
*List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/options/arin-ppml
<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/options/arin-ppml>>,
<mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net
<arin-ppml-request at arin.net>?subject=unsubscribe>*
List-Archive: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/>
List-Post: <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
List-Help: <mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>, <mailto:
arin-ppml-request at arin.net?subject=subscribe>



Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Kirubel Tadesse <
kirubel.m.tadesse at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please remove me from the email list!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>
> +1  allocated or assigned was indeed the intent.
> I believe this is an editorial change.
>
> I would make a call for anyone who either:
> 1. believes this is not an editorial change
> 2. would change their decision to no longer support.
>
> ___Jason
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy
>> intent as I understand it.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <
>>> rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>>> >>
>>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
>>> for
>>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>>> >>
>>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>>> >>
>>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
>>> IPv4
>>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
>>> holdings,
>>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>>> >>
>>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent
>>> in
>>> >> any 6 month period.
>>> >
>>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>>> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>>> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>>> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
>>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>>> >
>>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>>> >
>>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>>> >
>>> >     ? Brett
>>>
>>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
>>> assigned? added
>>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to
>>> be an
>>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
>>> regard, it
>>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in
>>> the upcoming
>>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 <(571)%20266-0006>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170419/801a52fd/attachment.htm>

From marilson.mapa at gmail.com  Wed Apr 19 16:27:46 2017
From: marilson.mapa at gmail.com (Marilson)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:27:46 -0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <2151E451-435A-41F6-9DA8-714C33EF64EC@arin.net>
References: <2151E451-435A-41F6-9DA8-714C33EF64EC@arin.net>
Message-ID: <C95A5CAD3636402CB6C586B05B9822E7@xPC>

Susan,

At the moment there are 7 messages sent by list members in my inbox (by Brett, Scott, Jason, Kirubel and Josh). All are copied to arin-ppml at arin.net and I received them.

If my messages were posted to ppml for all on the list to see, as you wrote, why did not I receive in my mail if all the messages posted by the members I receive?

My two messages were sent with copy to arin-ppml at arin.net and, as a member of the list, I did not receive them in my mail inbox.

I'm not referring to messages sent to marilson.mapa at gmail.com. I'm referring to the messages I've created that should be sent to members via arin-ppml at arin.net.

I am a member of RIPE's anti-abuse-wg. When I send a message to group members, via anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net, the anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net resends messages to anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net and all Members receive the message including the author of the message.

In ARIN, if my messages were being posted to members it would be via arin-ppml at arin.net and I would be receiving my message as well. Since I do not get the messages I send, it's because they are not being posted.
Being archived, means nothing. If I am persona non grata, you must have the decency to warn, so I will not waste time. Staying in or out of your list to me is absolutely indifferent, just do not waste my time.

I'll ask you again: Why are not my messages being posted to list members?

Thanks
Marilson


From: Susan Hamlin 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:19 AM
To: marilson.mapa at gmail.com 
Cc: Wendy Leedy 
Subject: FW: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC

Hello Marilson,

 

I asked our Operations staff to look into our email log to see if they could find any issues.

According to our logs, ?we sent marilson.mapa at gmail.com copies of the messages he/she sent. The Gmail servers accepted the messages from us. What Gmail did with it after that is beyond our ability to see.?

 

I am subscribed to ppml and did receive your email. Your messages were posted to ppml for all on the list to see and they also appear in the archives, meaning that they were received on the list so that all subscribers saw them.


At this point I don?t think there is anything else we can do on our end. Perhaps it is worth checking on your end to see if the message back to you was hung up in some manner.

 

Regards,

Susan

 


Susan Hamlin

Director, Communications and Member Services

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Office ? 1.703.227.9851

Mobile ? 1.703.930.6094

www.arin.net

 

 

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 

      Subject: 
     Re: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
     
      Date: 
     Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:18:01 -0300
     
      From: 
     Marilson mailto:marilson.mapa at gmail.com
     
      Reply-To: 
     Marilson mailto:marilson.mapa at gmail.com
     
      To: 
     ARIN mailto:info at arin.net
     

 

Are you kidding?

You dont answer my question: Why are not my comments being posted to arin-ppml? I don't receive what I send for arin-ppml.

I am not writing to files. I'm writing to list members.

 

I did not know there were censors in this organization. My condolences! But I confess I'm not surprised. I would be surprised if there were no sensors.

 

I mean, if I put a topic for discussion or ask a question, it goes to the file, and the idiot here stay waiting for comments that will never come? Is that it? There is a censor who decides what can be discussed in this list?

 

Have at least the decency to give an honest answer so I do not waste any more time.

 

Thanks

Marilson

 

 

From: ARIN 

Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 2:33 PM

To: Marilson 

Subject: Re: Fw: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC

 

Dear Marilson, 

Thank you for your email and inquiry. Your post appears in the archives at http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2017-April/031368.html. 

If you have additional questions, or if I may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. 

Thank you for your involvement in and support of ARIN! 

Best regards, 
Wendy 

Wendy Leedy
Member Engagement Coordinator
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)  

On 4/16/17 5:10 AM, Marilson wrote:

  Why are not my comments being posted to arin-ppml? I don't receive what I send for arin-ppml.

   

  Marilson


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   

  From: Marilson 

  Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:42 PM

  To: Bartlett Morgan ; calderon.alfredo at gmail.com 

  Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net 

  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC

   

  Hi Morgan,

   

  To my novice eyes, but tired and disappointed, I find it rather appropriate that the entity responsible for the management and allocation of IP address blocks adopt punitive measures against those who interfere in the free internet or in the inappropriate use of those services.

   

  Who decides? The evidence. And the Internet community seems to be the only one capable of putting punitive measures into practice.

   

  No matter who we are or what we do, commitment to democracy should always be part of our activities.

   

  The owners of these resources is the population of the planet. RIRs manage these resources on behalf of this population and should effectively manage without omitting and transferring that responsibility to governments or to their ISP customers.

   

  I say this because, just as there are autocratic governments, there are bad ISPs who arrogantly refuse to punish clients with illicit activities even in the face of evidence. And in the face of these bad providers, governments, without exception, turn a blind eye. They are more concerned about employment within their territory even at the expense of the population being the victim of spammers and scammers.

   

  This situation explains and does not justify the 420 billion spam and scam per day (Cisco).

   

  Never so few done so much harm to so many.

   

  No more shutdowns.

  No more denying access to information and knowledge.

  No more bad ISPs.

  Even with Trump!

   

  Marilson

   

   

  From: Bartlett Morgan 

  Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:12 AM

  To: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com 

  Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net 

  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC

   

  Doesn't seem like the most workable policy to my novice eyes.  

   

  Is it really a good idea to convert RIRs into the internet police? 

   

  if we think it is a good idea, who decides what's a proper case for implementation?

   

  On Apr 14, 2017 8:48 AM, "Alfredo Calderon" <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com> wrote:

    The discussion is very interesting and, could have consequences in ARIN if reciprocity policies are adopted among RIR?

     

          Error! Filename not specified.
          Alfredo Calderon
                eLearning Consultant 
               
                calderon.alfredo at gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212 | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon 
               
                      Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     Error! Filename not specified.
                     
               
         

    Error! Filename not specified.

    Get a signature like this: Click here! 

     

    On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:

      Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and article) was posted to the RIPE policy list.  This policy being discussed in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen so far.  I thought you all might be interested in reading the text.   It basically restricts access to IP addresses to governments who shut down Internet access.  

       

      https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01

       

      The article about the proposal is here

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/12/no_ip_addresses_for_countries/

       

      Enjoy! 

      ----Cathy

       

      {?,?}

        (( ))

        ?  ?


      _______________________________________________
      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/20170419/8fbaa383/attachment.htm>

From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Wed Apr 19 16:48:13 2017
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:48:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <C95A5CAD3636402CB6C586B05B9822E7@xPC>
References: <2151E451-435A-41F6-9DA8-714C33EF64EC@arin.net>
 <C95A5CAD3636402CB6C586B05B9822E7@xPC>
Message-ID: <0d62d3d5-29e7-715f-c7a7-730b2c129603@burnttofu.net>

On 4/19/17 1:27 PM, Marilson wrote:
> Susan,
> At the moment there are 7 messages sent by list members in my inbox (by 
> Brett, Scott, Jason, Kirubel and Josh). All are copied to 
> arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> and I received them.
> If my /messages were posted to ppml for all on the list to see,/ as you 
> wrote, why did not I receive in my mail if all the messages posted by 
> the members I receive?

Because you're using Gmail, which "helpfully" deduplicates messages you 
have sent to mailing lists by not showing you those messages in your inbox.

If I am able to respond to this message, your messages are making it to 
PPML.

michael


From rbraver at oklahoma-isp.net  Wed Apr 19 17:26:52 2017
From: rbraver at oklahoma-isp.net (Robert Braver)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:26:52 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <C95A5CAD3636402CB6C586B05B9822E7@xPC>
References: <2151E451-435A-41F6-9DA8-714C33EF64EC@arin.net>
 <C95A5CAD3636402CB6C586B05B9822E7@xPC>
Message-ID: <1304852657.20170419162652@oklahoma-isp.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170419/807d25c2/attachment.htm>

From marilson.mapa at gmail.com  Wed Apr 19 20:49:04 2017
From: marilson.mapa at gmail.com (Marilson)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:49:04 -0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
Message-ID: <C03396532F1E46D98FB3ADA4A23391CD@xPC>

Dear Robert, Cathy, Chris and Michael,

Thanks for clarifying the Gmail vs mailing lists problem.

I hope ARIN's staff has learned and now they know how to explain it at another opportunity.

Since there is no way to change this behavior I am out of this list.

Greetings to all and good work.
Marilson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170419/7913f93a/attachment.htm>

From marilson.mapa at gmail.com  Thu Apr 20 01:34:06 2017
From: marilson.mapa at gmail.com (Marilson)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:34:06 -0300
Subject: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC
In-Reply-To: <CALABLdbDB6qoX_UWRaMNyfdRMLwtqtN5mwhnG3J8HkEFx-3stw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C03396532F1E46D98FB3ADA4A23391CD@xPC>
 <CALABLdbDB6qoX_UWRaMNyfdRMLwtqtN5mwhnG3J8HkEFx-3stw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF33FE0B742B4957A08F9A58800A16CF@xPC>

Cathy, I know that this has nothing to do with the list. Has to do with me. It is clear now that my messages reaches all the members. Due to your concern you deserve explanations and thanks. You, as a photographer you are, use your eyes, your emotion, and then your finger. I first use the finger, straight into the wound.

Chris, ARIN dealt with it correctly, they just did not know where the problem was. Probably due to my lousy English, I think.

My reasons:
I am not a ISP owner. I am not a IT Professional, I am just a citizen, Urban Architect, worry about spam and scam. And I am talking about 420 billion of spam and scam PER DAY. I will always be intolerant of any action or policy that benefits spammers or increase the spam traffic on the Internet.

I'll tell you what would happen if I stayed on that list.
Soon, some ISP owners would ask for my banishment, others would call me troll. If anyone here is a member of RIPE anti-abuse-wg it would certainly confirm it.

Not that I'm worried about what some greedy sociopath will say. It turns out that when this happening I will get a bit paranoid and I will ask myself if my messages are being censored. If I do not receive my messages via ARIN-ppml due to Gmail, how will I know? Switching email is out of the question. It is my brand, my id.

If it is for the good of all and the general happiness of the ARIN Nation, tell the people that I am out.

Thanks for your concern,
Marilson

From: Chris James 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:03 PM
To: Marilson 
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Interesting policy proposal in AFRINIC

I think from a technical perspective ARIN did handle this entirely correct. They took your concern and used standard methods to ensure proper delivery. The behavior you are unhappy with is a result of google's attempt to oversimplify the end user's life. Perhaps submit a feature request to gmail and ask that functionality be optional? (link below) 

The only affect is would have on you would be not seeing your original email in your inbox, it is still in your sent "folder". Not sure how that affects subscription to the list, or common reasons to be involved?

Gmail - Request a feature: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/V_U7zBUZ8G4;context-place=forum/gmail


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Marilson <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:

  Dear Robert, Cathy, Chris and Michael,

  Thanks for clarifying the Gmail vs mailing lists problem.

  I hope ARIN's staff has learned and now they know how to explain it at another opportunity.

  Since there is no way to change this behavior I am out of this list.

  Greetings to all and good work.
  Marilson

  _______________________________________________
  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.



This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. This company is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170420/273d3c10/attachment.htm>

From info at arin.net  Thu Apr 20 11:21:46 2017
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:21:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] NRPM 2017.3: New Policy Implemented
Message-ID: <58F8D20A.3050402@arin.net>

On 19 December 2016, the Board of Trustees adopted the following 
Recommended Draft Policy:

ARIN-2016-2: Change timeframes for IPv4 requests to 24 months

This policy is now in effect. A new version of the ARIN Number Resource 
Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website.

NRPM version 2017.3 is effective 20 April 2017 and supersedes the 
previous version.

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 (PDP) is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


From dwhite at olp.net  Thu Apr 20 14:56:30 2017
From: dwhite at olp.net (Dan White)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:56:30 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] rwhoisd source
Message-ID: <20170420185627.yjd6udiibyrv557t@dan.olp.net>

We're migrating a rwhoisd daemon to a new server, and can't find the
rwhoisd source. Anyone know where it can be found?

-- 
Dan White
BTC Broadband
Network Admin Lead
Ph  918.366.0248 (direct)   main: (918)366-8000
Fax 918.366.6610            email: dwhite at olp.net
http://www.btcbroadband.com


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Apr 21 00:53:29 2017
From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:53:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201704210453.v3L4rTaW017154@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 22 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Apr 21 00:53:27 EDT 2017
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 18.18% |    4 | 27.02% |   109689 | marilson.mapa at gmail.com
 13.64% |    3 | 14.56% |    59125 | jschiller at google.com
  4.55% |    1 | 10.49% |    42590 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  6.13% |    24882 | josh at imaginenetworksllc.com
  4.55% |    1 |  5.67% |    23022 | chinese.apricot at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  5.27% |    21408 | kirubel.m.tadesse at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  5.15% |    20906 | bartlett.morgan at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  4.81% |    19518 | calderon.alfredo at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  4.10% |    16625 | scottleibrand at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  3.55% |    14394 | hannigan at gmail.com
  4.55% |    1 |  2.84% |    11521 | rbraver at oklahoma-isp.net
  4.55% |    1 |  2.14% |     8675 | narten at us.ibm.com
  4.55% |    1 |  1.98% |     8046 | owen at delong.com
  4.55% |    1 |  1.79% |     7276 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
  4.55% |    1 |  1.63% |     6632 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net
  4.55% |    1 |  1.47% |     5978 | info at arin.net
  4.55% |    1 |  1.40% |     5695 | dwhite at olp.net
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   22 |100.00% |   405982 | Total



From michael at linuxmagic.com  Fri Apr 21 12:19:59 2017
From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] rwhoisd source
In-Reply-To: <20170420185627.yjd6udiibyrv557t@dan.olp.net>
References: <20170420185627.yjd6udiibyrv557t@dan.olp.net>
Message-ID: <4e036f7b-f792-0ee4-b942-8ceb93d8fd83@linuxmagic.com>

On 17-04-20 11:56 AM, Dan White wrote:
> We're migrating a rwhoisd daemon to a new server, and can't find the
> rwhoisd source. Anyone know where it can be found?
>

It of course used to be housed at:

http://projects.arin.net/rwhois/

This is now a 404 page.

(ARIN, can you report on whether this will be re-activated?)

You can in the mean time use rpmfind.net to locate the latest source.
I think it is version 1.5.9.6-5 as latest.

There used to be a link somewhere on RIPE as well, but yes it is very 
disappointing that this is so hard to find now..

Might be worth putting up a mirror..


-- 
"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 Andrew.C.Hadenfeldt at windstream.com  Fri Apr 21 14:34:31 2017
From: Andrew.C.Hadenfeldt at windstream.com (Hadenfeldt, Andrew C)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:34:31 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] rwhoisd source
In-Reply-To: <4e036f7b-f792-0ee4-b942-8ceb93d8fd83@linuxmagic.com>
References: <20170420185627.yjd6udiibyrv557t@dan.olp.net>
 <4e036f7b-f792-0ee4-b942-8ceb93d8fd83@linuxmagic.com>
Message-ID: <5D106C75D5C2DD41AB2B4B823FE0EC052DE6BC6E@CWWAPP480.windstream.com>

Looks like it's here: https://ftp.arin.net/pub/rwhois/
-Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Peddemors
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:20 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] rwhoisd source

On 17-04-20 11:56 AM, Dan White wrote:
> We're migrating a rwhoisd daemon to a new server, and can't find the
> rwhoisd source. Anyone know where it can be found?
>

It of course used to be housed at:

http://projects.arin.net/rwhois/

This is now a 404 page.

(ARIN, can you report on whether this will be re-activated?)

You can in the mean time use rpmfind.net to locate the latest source.
I think it is version 1.5.9.6-5 as latest.

There used to be a link somewhere on RIPE as well, but yes it is very 
disappointing that this is so hard to find now..

Might be worth putting up a mirror..


-- 
"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.
_______________________________________________
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.

This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.


From richardj at arin.net  Fri Apr 21 14:54:34 2017
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:54:34 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] rwhoisd source
In-Reply-To: <4e036f7b-f792-0ee4-b942-8ceb93d8fd83@linuxmagic.com>
References: <20170420185627.yjd6udiibyrv557t@dan.olp.net>
 <4e036f7b-f792-0ee4-b942-8ceb93d8fd83@linuxmagic.com>
Message-ID: <7d9d9b90935242ff8dea7e2504152a81@CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net>

Hello,

Thank you for pointing out the 404, and please accept our apology for the inconvenience. We are currently working to restore that page since others may also have it bookmarked. In the meantime, you may be able to find what you need here:

https://ftp.arin.net/pub/rwhois/

Warm regards,

---
Richard Jimmerson
CIO  |  richardj at arin.net
American Registry for Internet Numbers


> We're migrating a rwhoisd daemon to a new server, and can't find the 
> rwhoisd source. Anyone know where it can be found?

> It of course used to be housed at:
> http://projects.arin.net/rwhois/
> This is now a 404 page.


From info at arin.net  Tue Apr 25 14:19:29 2017
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:19:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2017
In-Reply-To: <58EBEC8D.4080809@arin.net>
References: <58EBEC8D.4080809@arin.net>
Message-ID: <58FF9331.3090407@arin.net>

> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2017
> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:35:25 -0400
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> The AC abandoned the following:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>
> The AC provided the following statement:
>
> "The AC abandoned Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8 for lack of support by the
> ARIN community. The AC believes Whois data issues raised in this policy
> should continue to be discussed and a new draft policy may emerge as a
> result of that work that better addresses community concerns."
>
> Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The
> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's
> draft meeting minutes are published.


The draft minutes of the Advisory Council's 5 April 2017 meeting have 
been published at:

https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2017_0405.html

The petition deadline for the abandonment of Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8 is 
2 May 2017, five business days from today.

For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see: 
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html

For Policy Development Process details, visit:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Apr 28 00:53:12 2017
From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:53:12 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201704280453.v3S4rC2S009390@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Apr 28 00:53:07 EDT 2017
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 20.00% |    1 | 25.48% |    10205 | andrew.c.hadenfeldt at windstream.com
 20.00% |    1 | 22.78% |     9124 | narten at us.ibm.com
 20.00% |    1 | 17.92% |     7179 | michael at linuxmagic.com
 20.00% |    1 | 17.00% |     6808 | richardj at arin.net
 20.00% |    1 | 16.82% |     6736 | info at arin.net
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    5 |100.00% |    40052 | Total



From jrl at lodden.com  Sat Apr 29 17:30:35 2017
From: jrl at lodden.com (jrl)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 19:30:35 -0200
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?useful_stuff?=
Message-ID: <1441986034.20170430003035@lodden.com>

Greetings, 

I've heard you were looking for  that stuff for  a long time,  so I guess I have  finally found  it for you,  check it out http://www.letsrisse.com/wp-content/plugins/donation-button/admin/partials/lib/infusionsoft/xmlrpc-3.0/test/PHPUnit/cognitive.php?d2d3

Faithfully, jrl



From: arin-ppml [mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 5:30 PM
To: jrl at lodden.com
Subject: PM me?

I do not think anyone is calling  Jay a "pathological liar" as a medical  diagnosis. People use it colloquially  all the  time to describe  someone who lies all the time.   Check out Google and you will find it  is used in a  non-medical sense  frequently -  and  defined in terms that are non-medical as well.  Thanks for your warning  though however unwarranted  it was.


Sent from Mail for Windows 10
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170429/8e7dc03f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0F4A9E3454658187C4013EB0EBE2DFF1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13077 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170429/8e7dc03f/attachment.jpg>