Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation

> I am extremely concerned and somewhat think I have missed the bus totally,
> what is going to happen to current IP address space that has been issued to
> ISP's?? Will the IP Address space be re-released or still kept as its
> constituency??
> Maybe I am totally confused but I am under the impression that IP-based web
> hosting is going to require that all previously released address space be
> reissued???
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigma at pair.com [mailto:sigma at pair.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:18 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
> what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
> understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.
> 
> I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
> to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).
> 
> Kevin
> 
> > Please do not be confused. ARIN is not going to review the request but
> > rather the technical reasons being supplied so that wheels can be set in
> > motion to either solve the technical reasons (not necessarily something
> that
> > ARIN will do, but the Internet community as a whole) or accept the fact
> that
> > it is an issue that cannot be resolved and allow that to stand in the
> future
> > as an acceptable reason for using IP-based webhosting. No where is it
> > inferred that ARIN will refuse address space based on the technical
> > justification at this time.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> > To: A. M. Salim
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> > Recommendation
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Mike:
> >   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> > about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> > been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> > only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> > provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> > should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of
> "OPERATIONAL
> > > EXPERIENCE".
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> > > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
> being
> > > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
> the
> > > luxury of debating their position with them.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > 
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
> 
> *******************************************************************
>