Been quiet in here...

This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should people
have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs to
encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
effective.  Just my thoughts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
web-hosting.
>
> There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
(this
> should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
> exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
> hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned
the
> overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
> the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and
make
> the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
manditory
> between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
>
> Clay
> Exodus Communications
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
> Peterson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> hosting policy?
>
> Alec
>
> --
> Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
> Staff Scientist
> CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
> "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
>
>