From info at arin.net Thu Mar 3 13:12:02 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:12:02 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes Message-ID: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> On 29 February 2016, the ARIN Board of Trustees proposed changes to the ARIN Bylaws. Per Article X. Section 6.b. of the Bylaws, several of these changes require community notification and consultation before they can be adopted. ARIN is conducting this community consultation to obtain feedback on the proposed set of Bylaws changes. The proposed changes include: * Improving language for appointment of a Trustee for purposes of improving overall Board diversity of skills or background * Clarifying the staggering of terms for Trustee and Advisory Council members * Modifying the Trustee removal process to make removals by the Board of Trustees subject to membership ratification * Clarifying the process for interim appointments and partial terms * Changing the processes for Bylaws changes and Articles of Incorporation changes so all changes are sent to community consultation before final adoption by the Board of Trustees. A full redline version of the proposed changes are available for review at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/bylaws_proposed_2016.pdf Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net This notification and consultation period will close at 5 PM EDT, 2 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From David_Huberman at outlook.com Thu Mar 3 15:42:05 2016 From: David_Huberman at outlook.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:42:05 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> Message-ID: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw changes. My thoughts: 1) Since the proposed changes include the addition of a potential 8th voting member, and because this 8th voting member will not be elected by the community (but instead, appointed by the community-elected members), I feel that this is sufficiently impactful that the Board has a duty to socialize this proposal beyond the boundaries of arin-consult (a small, rather incestuous list) and the ARIN PPM (also a small and rather incestuous gathering). Please consider posting this to the more widely circulated PPML, for a larger field of input. Though PPML comes with quite a bit of noise, there are some very insightful folks who may have input on this proposal who are not subscribed to arin-consult. 2) Article VIII, section 1, first sentence conflicts with the proposed introduction of a non-elected member of the Board. Recommend Article VIII section 1 be re-written to clarify it is germane only to elected Trustee slots. 3) The redline changes for Article VI, Section 1b indicates the appointed trustee may be appointed "for a term not to exceed one (1) year". I am not a lawyer (and perhaps one is needed here), but to me, that reads: - on the date the appointed trustee takes "office", the term is 365 days. So if the trustee is seated on April 4th, the term will not end until the end of the day April 3 the following year. This is NOT further clarified in the otherwise-pertinent Article VI Section 4. - the appointed trustee can be re-appointed for a second, third, or nth one year term at the Board's discretion. Are these two bullet points accurate? If not, please correct my understanding. 4) Article VI, Section 7 may (or may not) conflict with the new language in Section 1b. Because section 7 uses "appointed", it introduces (or furthers) two potential conflicts: - if the appointed member of the Board (the 8th voting member, not a person appointed to fulfill a vacated seat mid-term) must vacate her appointment, section 7 theoretically may set in motion an election, which is not intended for the potential 8th seat. At the very least, the language in section 7, when read in combination with section 1b, is unnecessarily complex. Recommend that section 7 language be further clarified as to what "appointed" means within the text. - if the appointed member of the Board (the 8th voting member, not a person appointed to fulfill a vacated seat mid-term) must vacate her appointment, section 1b would seem to imply the Board can choose to appoint a new appointed trustee and that trustee should have a one year term. Section 7 language conflicts with this, again, because of its use of "appointed" in the text. Section 7 says there is an interim appointment of the appointed trustee, which is not intended (right?). Same recommendation as above. 5) Finally, unrelated to the redline changes, Article VI, Section 1e indicates that two employees of the same company can't sit on the Board. Or at least, that seems like what it's trying to say. Note that if there are two seats open, and Me and Joe from the same company run, nothing precludes us from both being elected and both being seated, as neither of us were Sitting Trustees at the time we were.. sat. Again, just my reading, I'm not a lawyer, and happy to be proven wrong. Thank again for this opportunity to provide feedback. David Huberman ________________________________________ From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net on behalf of ARIN Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 1:12 PM To: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes On 29 February 2016, the ARIN Board of Trustees proposed changes to the ARIN Bylaws. Per Article X. Section 6.b. of the Bylaws, several of these changes require community notification and consultation before they can be adopted. ARIN is conducting this community consultation to obtain feedback on the proposed set of Bylaws changes. The proposed changes include: * Improving language for appointment of a Trustee for purposes of improving overall Board diversity of skills or background * Clarifying the staggering of terms for Trustee and Advisory Council members * Modifying the Trustee removal process to make removals by the Board of Trustees subject to membership ratification * Clarifying the process for interim appointments and partial terms * Changing the processes for Bylaws changes and Articles of Incorporation changes so all changes are sent to community consultation before final adoption by the Board of Trustees. A full redline version of the proposed changes are available for review at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/bylaws_proposed_2016.pdf Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net This notification and consultation period will close at 5 PM EDT, 2 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 16:10:21 2016 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> Message-ID: <955305043.3260642.1457039421274.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> It's been a while since I've looked. VI.1.b. Diversity is a good thing. However, "lawyer" is not a class for diversification. Can the Board provide examples of why it would be desirable to have someone with legal expertise be a Board member, rather than a Board counsellor? I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region," because there are Internet practicalities there that are different from the rest of ARIN's service area. I would also like to see racial and gender diversity.The NomCom has slated qualified candidates who would provide that diversity, and the Members have chosen not to elect them. I don't think the Board should revise the Bylaws because it is unhappy with the way the Members voted. VI.4.II (I think) You deleted the period.VI.4.IV (I think) This should stay. There are reasons a Trustee might need to be removed that would be better done by the Board than the Membership. For instance, if a health issue precludes satisfactorily performing, the full membership should not need to know the details. VI.7. Is in conflict with itself. Does an interim appointment serve the remainder of the term, or is the seat part of the next election? It should be just until the next election; let the Members decide. Lee From: ARIN To: arin-consult at arin.net Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 1:12 PM Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes On 29 February 2016, the ARIN Board of Trustees proposed changes to the ARIN Bylaws. Per Article X. Section 6.b. of the Bylaws, several of these changes require community notification and consultation before they can be adopted.? ARIN is conducting this community consultation to obtain feedback on the proposed set of Bylaws changes. The proposed changes include: * Improving language for appointment of a Trustee for purposes of improving overall Board diversity of skills or background * Clarifying the staggering of terms for Trustee and Advisory Council members * Modifying the Trustee removal process to make removals by the Board of Trustees subject to membership ratification * Clarifying the process for interim appointments and partial terms * Changing the processes for Bylaws changes and Articles of Incorporation changes so all changes are sent to community consultation before final adoption by the Board of Trustees. A full redline version of the proposed changes are available for review at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/bylaws_proposed_2016.pdf Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net This notification and consultation period will close at 5 PM EDT, 2 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 3 17:33:53 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:33:53 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> Message-ID: On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:42 PM, David Huberman > wrote: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw changes. My thoughts: 1) Since the proposed changes include the addition of a potential 8th voting member, and because this 8th voting member will not be elected by the community (but instead, appointed by the community-elected members), I feel that this is sufficiently impactful that the Board has a duty to socialize this proposal beyond the boundaries of arin-consult (a small, rather incestuous list) and the ARIN PPM (also a small and rather incestuous gathering). David - To be clear, the existing ARIN bylaws provide the following: ?b. Composition. The Board of Trustees shall consist of seven (7) voting members. Six (6) of these members shall be elected or appointed in accordance with Article VIII. The President of ARIN is the seventh voting member of the Board of Trustees. An additional voting member (potentially bringing the Board to 8 voting seats) may be appointed for a term not to exceed three (3) years at the discretion of the seated Board and is reserved for adding a person with a financial management background to supplement the existing Board of Trustees. ? i.e. the Board may already appoint a potential 8th member under the present bylaws. The proposed change is that this existing potential appointment would be available for a larger range of purposes other than simply "for adding a person with a financial management background? The proposed bylaw language is as follows: "An additional voting member (potentially bringing the Board to 8 voting seats) may be appointed by the Board at its discretion (for a term not to exceed one (1) year) to provide diversity to the Board?s membership, including but not limited to one or several of the following criteria: (i) a background in financial management or law; (ii) geographic diversity in the ARIN region; (iii) gender diversity; or (iv) a specific technology background to supplement the existing Board of Trustees.? Thus allowing the appointment of an 8th trustee for a period of a year to provide diversity of the trustees in several additional measures, including legal background, geographic diversity, gender diversity, or a specific technology background. Is this a reasonable change, or do you consider it ill-advised (and why?) Please consider posting this to the more widely circulated PPML, for a larger field of input. Though PPML comes with quite a bit of noise, there are some very insightful folks who may have input on this proposal who are not subscribed to aria-consult. The announcement of a consultation on the proposed bylaw change was send to arin-announce, which is the appropriate list for announcements. To the extent that you are aware of insightful folks interested in this topic, please suggest that they join the mailing list we use for consultations (arin-consult); this list is open to general public and hence available to anyone who has an interest. 2) Article VIII, section 1, first sentence conflicts with the proposed introduction of a non-elected member of the Board. Recommend Article VIII section 1 be re-written to clarify it is germane only to elected Trustee slots. Appointed Board members are already extant in the present bylaws, so this is not a conflict introduced by the proposed Bylaw change. However, it has been noted for review and clarification. 3) The redline changes for Article VI, Section 1b indicates the appointed trustee may be appointed "for a term not to exceed one (1) year". I am not a lawyer (and perhaps one is needed here), but to me, that reads: - on the date the appointed trustee takes "office", the term is 365 days. So if the trustee is seated on April 4th, the term will not end until the end of the day April 3 the following year. This is NOT further clarified in the otherwise-pertinent Article VI Section 4. The appointment is "(for a term not to exceed one (1) year)? as noted in the proposed language, so the appointment could be for a shorter interval, if so specified by the Board. (Note also that Article VI Section 4 specifies "elected Trustees?, and thus is sufficiently qualified to be not applicable to an appointed Trustee) - the appointed trustee can be re-appointed for a second, third, or nth one year term at the Board's discretion. Interesting question. I myself would consider it very poor form to perform a consecutive appointment, in light of the "for a term not to exceed one (1) year? language, but it might not be strictly prohibited. Referred to Counsel for review. 4) Article VI, Section 7 may (or may not) conflict with the new language in Section 1b. Because section 7 uses "appointed", it introduces (or furthers) two potential conflicts: - if the appointed member of the Board (the 8th voting member, not a person appointed to fulfill a vacated seat mid-term) must vacate her appointment, section 7 theoretically may set in motion an election, which is not intended for the potential 8th seat. At the very least, the language in section 7, when read in combination with section 1b, is unnecessarily complex. Recommend that section 7 language be further clarified as to what "appointed" means within the text. - if the appointed member of the Board (the 8th voting member, not a person appointed to fulfill a vacated seat mid-term) must vacate her appointment, section 1b would seem to imply the Board can choose to appoint a new appointed trustee and that trustee should have a one year term. Section 7 language conflicts with this, again, because of its use of "appointed" in the text. Section 7 says there is an interim appointment of the appointed trustee, which is not intended (right?). Same recommendation as above. Article VI, Section 7 is designed to allow the Board or AC to perform interim appointments when one of their elected members vacates, and I do agree that its application to an appointed seat would appear to create several needlessly complex situations. While this exists in the present bylaws as a potential item of confusion, it certainly warrants clarification at some point in the future and has been noted. 5) Finally, unrelated to the redline changes, Article VI, Section 1e indicates that two employees of the same company can't sit on the Board. Or at least, that seems like what it's trying to say. Note that if there are two seats open, and Me and Joe from the same company run, nothing precludes us from both being elected and both being seated, as neither of us were Sitting Trustees at the time we were.. sat. Again, just my reading, I'm not a lawyer, and happy to be proven wrong. Actually, this is one of the items that the Nomination Committee looks for, and you are likely to be asked whether an existing Board member in your company is stepping down or intends to step down if you?re a nominee. In the case of two nominees from the same company, the NomCom may easily decide that such ambiguity makes both not qualified to be on the ballot. (In the worse case, if the NomCom put both nominees on the ballot and two candidates were to be elected from the same company, seats are assumed in the order of highest number of votes received, and thus your acceptance of the seat would then preclude Joe from being qualified to be seated, the spot passing to the next highest candidate per Article VI, Section 7.) Do you consider the present language prohibiting two trustees from the same company something that needs to be changed, and if so, why? Thanks for the feedback on the proposed changes! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty at akamai.com Thu Mar 3 17:43:00 2016 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:43:00 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> Message-ID: <4DAF2711-9E3A-4CBD-95CB-24EBAA5F50AF@akamai.com> > On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:42 PM, David Huberman wrote: > > Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw changes. My thoughts: > > 1) Since the proposed changes include the addition of a potential 8th voting member, and because this 8th voting member will not be elected by the community (but instead, appointed by the community-elected members), I feel that this is sufficiently impactful that the Board has a duty to socialize this proposal beyond the boundaries of arin-consult (a small, rather incestuous list) and the ARIN PPM (also a small and rather incestuous gathering). > > Please consider posting this to the more widely circulated PPML, for a larger field of input. Though PPML comes with quite a bit of noise, there are some very insightful folks who may have input on this proposal who are not subscribed to arin-consult. The changes are ?of interest? to the public, but the bylaws and the business of the association are that of the members. This should be primarily discussed on a members only list. Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 3 18:00:45 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:00:45 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <4DAF2711-9E3A-4CBD-95CB-24EBAA5F50AF@akamai.com> References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> <4DAF2711-9E3A-4CBD-95CB-24EBAA5F50AF@akamai.com> Message-ID: <2ED60E7B-7960-4593-AF85-6C9041323B2B@corp.arin.net> On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:42 PM, David Huberman wrote: >> >> Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw changes. My thoughts: >> >> 1) Since the proposed changes include the addition of a potential 8th voting member, and because this 8th voting member will not be elected by the community (but instead, appointed by the community-elected members), I feel that this is sufficiently impactful that the Board has a duty to socialize this proposal beyond the boundaries of arin-consult (a small, rather incestuous list) and the ARIN PPM (also a small and rather incestuous gathering). >> >> Please consider posting this to the more widely circulated PPML, for a larger field of input. Though PPML comes with quite a bit of noise, there are some very insightful folks who may have input on this proposal who are not subscribed to arin-consult. > > The changes are ?of interest? to the public, but the bylaws and the business of the association are that of the members. This should be primarily discussed on a members only list. I can easily see the merits of such a position, but we have to also recognize that ARIN?s governance can have effects on parties which are not members (e.g. legacy address holders) and as a result have historically chosen to use an open consultation list for such matters. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 3 18:17:51 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:17:51 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <955305043.3260642.1457039421274.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> <955305043.3260642.1457039421274.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> On Mar 3, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Lee Howard > wrote: It's been a while since I've looked. VI.1.b. Diversity is a good thing. However, "lawyer" is not a class for diversification. Can the Board provide examples of why it would be desirable to have someone with legal expertise be a Board member, rather than a Board counsellor? Hello Lee! As noted in an earlier response, the ability to appoint an eighth Board member for diversity of background already exists in the bylaws, but presently available only for financial background. The propose bylaws change would allow the Board to make an appointment of the eighth trustee to address a wider range of issues in diversity of the Board composition, including legal background, geographic diversity, gender diversity, or a specific technology background. Regarding specifically why legal background might be desirable of a Board member, I don?t think that is necessary any more desirable than a Board member with specific technology background (because in either case we can contract for the specific expertise to advise the Board) - however, the Board sought to generalize the conditions where the appointment might be applicable, and included both of these options as well as the geographic and gender diversity options. I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region," because there are Internet practicalities there that are different from the rest of ARIN's service area. I would also like to see racial and gender diversity. Could you elaborate on how you feel this should be accomplished? (if not per the mechanism in the proposed bylaws change) The NomCom has slated qualified candidates who would provide that diversity, and the Members have chosen not to elect them. To be clear, the members chose to elect other candidates over the candidates which would provide more diversity, but that was not any indication of lack of qualification or desirability, but more a reflection of availability of Board seats. I don't think the Board should revise the Bylaws because it is unhappy with the way the Members voted. Not at all, but the Board also needs to make sure that it has sufficient breadth of background in order to do an adequate job. This has been recognized for some time with respect to financial background, and the Board (looking at the same issues as you cite above regarding diversity) felt that the existing eighth trustee appointment might be helpful in this regard. Again, if you feel there is a better mechanism, please elaborate on your proposal. VI.4.II (I think) You deleted the period. Could you be slightly more specific - what is the text of the affected sentence that has lost its period? VI.4.IV (I think) This should stay. There are reasons a Trustee might need to be removed that would be better done by the Board than the Membership. For instance, if a health issue precludes satisfactorily performing, the full membership should not need to know the details. As it turns out, this change is necessary for compliance with the Virginia law under which we operate (Va. Code ? 13.1-860.B.) Nothing prevents an elected Board member from resigning if so desired, and this likely would occur in situations where their performance impacted the Board to point of raising the removal issue. VI.7. Is in conflict with itself. Does an interim appointment serve the remainder of the term, or is the seat part of the next election? It should be just until the next election; let the Members decide. Could you be more specific about the conflict? The appointment of an interim member is until succeed by an individual elected at the next general election - this is fairly clear in the language, but if you see a conflict then please elaborate so we can see the specific conflict. Thank you very much for your input on the proposed ARIN Bylaws changes! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David_Huberman at outlook.com Thu Mar 3 18:22:33 2016 From: David_Huberman at outlook.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:22:33 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: References: <56D87E72.6010506@arin.net> , Message-ID: John, To the extent the Board wishes the bylaws to be persuasively defensible in a judicial proceeding, I would think it would want to improve VI 1b (successive terms) and VI 7 (unexpected vacancies) and especially VI 1e (two Trustees same company). If the Board is happy with the text as-is, then I have no objections as a General Member. For everyone's sake, I think it would be useful if the # of terms in VI 1b were clarified, to either explicitly allow or disallow successive and/or non-consecutive terms by the same individual. As to the question of the virtue of the proposed changes, I support them. David ________________________________ From: John Curran Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 5:33 PM To: David R Huberman Cc: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:42 PM, David Huberman > wrote: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw changes. My thoughts: 1) Since the proposed changes include the addition of a potential 8th voting member, and because this 8th voting member will not be elected by the community (but instead, appointed by the community-elected members), I feel that this is sufficiently impactful that the Board has a duty to socialize this proposal beyond the boundaries of arin-consult (a small, rather incestuous list) and the ARIN PPM (also a small and rather incestuous gathering). David - To be clear, the existing ARIN bylaws provide the following: ?b. Composition. The Board of Trustees shall consist of seven (7) voting members. Six (6) of these members shall be elected or appointed in accordance with Article VIII. The President of ARIN is the seventh voting member of the Board of Trustees. An additional voting member (potentially bringing the Board to 8 voting seats) may be appointed for a term not to exceed three (3) years at the discretion of the seated Board and is reserved for adding a person with a financial management background to supplement the existing Board of Trustees. ? i.e. the Board may already appoint a potential 8th member under the present bylaws. The proposed change is that this existing potential appointment would be available for a larger range of purposes other than simply "for adding a person with a financial management background? The proposed bylaw language is as follows: "An additional voting member (potentially bringing the Board to 8 voting seats) may be appointed by the Board at its discretion (for a term not to exceed one (1) year) to provide diversity to the Board?s membership, including but not limited to one or several of the following criteria: (i) a background in financial management or law; (ii) geographic diversity in the ARIN region; (iii) gender diversity; or (iv) a specific technology background to supplement the existing Board of Trustees.? Thus allowing the appointment of an 8th trustee for a period of a year to provide diversity of the trustees in several additional measures, including legal background, geographic diversity, gender diversity, or a specific technology background. Is this a reasonable change, or do you consider it ill-advised (and why?) Please consider posting this to the more widely circulated PPML, for a larger field of input. Though PPML comes with quite a bit of noise, there are some very insightful folks who may have input on this proposal who are not subscribed to aria-consult. The announcement of a consultation on the proposed bylaw change was send to arin-announce, which is the appropriate list for announcements. To the extent that you are aware of insightful folks interested in this topic, please suggest that they join the mailing list we use for consultations (arin-consult); this list is open to general public and hence available to anyone who has an interest. 2) Article VIII, section 1, first sentence conflicts with the proposed introduction of a non-elected member of the Board. Recommend Article VIII section 1 be re-written to clarify it is germane only to elected Trustee slots. Appointed Board members are already extant in the present bylaws, so this is not a conflict introduced by the proposed Bylaw change. However, it has been noted for review and clarification. 3) The redline changes for Article VI, Section 1b indicates the appointed trustee may be appointed "for a term not to exceed one (1) year". I am not a lawyer (and perhaps one is needed here), but to me, that reads: - on the date the appointed trustee takes "office", the term is 365 days. So if the trustee is seated on April 4th, the term will not end until the end of the day April 3 the following year. This is NOT further clarified in the otherwise-pertinent Article VI Section 4. The appointment is "(for a term not to exceed one (1) year)? as noted in the proposed language, so the appointment could be for a shorter interval, if so specified by the Board. (Note also that Article VI Section 4 specifies "elected Trustees?, and thus is sufficiently qualified to be not applicable to an appointed Trustee) - the appointed trustee can be re-appointed for a second, third, or nth one year term at the Board's discretion. Interesting question. I myself would consider it very poor form to perform a consecutive appointment, in light of the "for a term not to exceed one (1) year? language, but it might not be strictly prohibited. Referred to Counsel for review. 4) Article VI, Section 7 may (or may not) conflict with the new language in Section 1b. Because section 7 uses "appointed", it introduces (or furthers) two potential conflicts: - if the appointed member of the Board (the 8th voting member, not a person appointed to fulfill a vacated seat mid-term) must vacate her appointment, section 7 theoretically may set in motion an election, which is not intended for the potential 8th seat. At the very least, the language in section 7, when read in combination with section 1b, is unnecessarily complex. Recommend that section 7 language be further clarified as to what "appointed" means within the text. - if the appointed member of the Board (the 8th voting member, not a person appointed to fulfill a vacated seat mid-term) must vacate her appointment, section 1b would seem to imply the Board can choose to appoint a new appointed trustee and that trustee should have a one year term. Section 7 language conflicts with this, again, because of its use of "appointed" in the text. Section 7 says there is an interim appointment of the appointed trustee, which is not intended (right?). Same recommendation as above. Article VI, Section 7 is designed to allow the Board or AC to perform interim appointments when one of their elected members vacates, and I do agree that its application to an appointed seat would appear to create several needlessly complex situations. While this exists in the present bylaws as a potential item of confusion, it certainly warrants clarification at some point in the future and has been noted. 5) Finally, unrelated to the redline changes, Article VI, Section 1e indicates that two employees of the same company can't sit on the Board. Or at least, that seems like what it's trying to say. Note that if there are two seats open, and Me and Joe from the same company run, nothing precludes us from both being elected and both being seated, as neither of us were Sitting Trustees at the time we were.. sat. Again, just my reading, I'm not a lawyer, and happy to be proven wrong. Actually, this is one of the items that the Nomination Committee looks for, and you are likely to be asked whether an existing Board member in your company is stepping down or intends to step down if you?re a nominee. In the case of two nominees from the same company, the NomCom may easily decide that such ambiguity makes both not qualified to be on the ballot. (In the worse case, if the NomCom put both nominees on the ballot and two candidates were to be elected from the same company, seats are assumed in the order of highest number of votes received, and thus your acceptance of the seat would then preclude Joe from being qualified to be seated, the spot passing to the next highest candidate per Article VI, Section 7.) Do you consider the present language prohibiting two trustees from the same company something that needs to be changed, and if so, why? Thanks for the feedback on the proposed changes! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Sat Mar 5 08:32:13 2016 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:32:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: John Curran To: Lee Howard Cc: "arin-consult at arin.net" Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes > Regarding specifically why legal background might be desirable of a Board?> member, I don?t think that is necessary any more desirable than a Board?> member with specific technology background (because in either case we?> can contract for the specific expertise to advise the Board) - however, the> Board sought to generalize the conditions where the appointment might?> be applicable, and included both of these options as well as the geographic> and gender diversity options. It's weird.It's particularly weird to group legal/business/technical/gender/geographic balance together. I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. The person seated there for gender or geographic reasons would likely be treated differently than elected Board members, and would know they were seated for diversity (and suspect that ability was less a factor) which would affect their contribution to Board work. I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region," because there are Internet practicalities there that are different from the rest of ARIN's service area.?I would also like to see racial and gender diversity. > Could you elaborate on how you feel this should be accomplished? (if not?> per the mechanism in the proposed bylaws change) ARIN already does meeting fellowships, and I believe these include mentors. That's a very good start. What's the return rate for fellows? Where is ARIN's harrassment policy? It's Meeting Code of Conduct?Have you provided Ally Skills training to Board, AC, and staff, so people know how to handle sub-harrassment events? Does ARIN's PDP allow for multiple styles of contribution, or is it dominated by people who dominate discussion? Have you thought about offering day care, so parents can attend meetings?Have you consulted with professionals?? (another friend of mine is a STEM Inclusion consultant in the DC Area, and former president of a science association you've heard of, if you need a reference) In other words, take the long road: make sure ARIN is a place where diverse contributors feel their input is welcomed and valued, enable them to make profound contributions, and the members will take care of leadership diversity. The NomCom has slated qualified candidates who would provide that diversity, and the Members have chosen not to elect them. > To be clear, the members chose to elect other candidates over the candidates> which would provide more diversity, but that was not any indication of lack of> qualification or desirability, but more a reflection of availability of Board seats. ? If that were the case, then adding another elected Board seat would solve the problem."Not enough Board seats" is exactly the same as "somebody else won" or "we didn't lose, we just ran out of time." (Vince Lombardi) I don't think the Board should revise the Bylaws because it is unhappy with the way the Members voted. > Not at all, but the Board also needs to make sure that it has sufficient breadth?> of background in order to do an adequate job. ?This has been recognized for> some time with respect to financial background, and the Board (looking at the> same issues as you cite above regarding diversity) felt that the existing eighth> trustee appointment might be helpful in this regard. ? Again, if you feel there is> a better mechanism, please elaborate on your proposal. If geographic diversity is critical, then follow the practice of ICANN, AfriNIC, and have one or two seats reserved for each part of ARIN's geographic constituency.? One each from Canada, Caribbean and islands, and the U.S., and four At-Large. As for professional competency, the Board has long enjoyed the advice of qualified outside legal counsel, and specifically charters the NomCom to find candidates who have business and technology experience. If somehow the Board lost all of its business experience, hiring business counsel would be advisable. VI.4.IV (I think) This should stay. There are reasons a Trustee might need to be removed that would be better done by the Board than the Membership. For instance, if a health issue precludes satisfactorily performing, the full membership should not need to know the details. > As it turns out, this change is necessary for compliance with the Virginia law under?> which we operate (Va. Code ? 13.1-860.B.) ? Nothing prevents an elected Board?> member from resigning if so desired, and this likely would occur in situations where> their performance impacted the Board to point of raising the removal issue. Ah. Well, I support compliance with the law.? > (missing period)A Trustee may be removed from office, with or without cause, by a successful recall petition and vote processinitiated by the General Members Upon receipt That's the redline version. Period needed after "General Members" or it changes the sense of the sentence. VI.7. Is in conflict with itself. Does an interim appointment serve the remainder of the term, or is the seat part of the next election? It should be just until the next election; let the Members decide. > Could you be more specific about the conflict? ?The appointment of an interim?> member is until succeed by an individual elected at the next general election -> this is fairly clear in the language, but if you see a conflict then please elaborate?> so we can see the specific conflict. My mistake. The interim appointment is only until the next election. The election fills the seat for the remainder of the term, not for a full two or three year term. "The seat of any such interim appointment shall be included in the first general election process that starts after the appointment. An individual elected as a successor serves the remainder of the unexpired term." Summary of the important part:I actually think ARIN does fairly well with gender inclusion, having had quite a few women on the AC, and at least one transgendered member. ARIN does suffer from the fact that few women have business leadership positions in technology, and so there's a paltry pool of potential Board members. I have a feeling that IP Analysts are often not in the line of succession to top ranks, so those who have the best-informed opinions on ARIN's policies are less likely to be great Board candidates. I don't think ARIN can or should alter technology career tracks, although giving participants knowledge that enables them to contribute better to their home organizations benefits everyone. ARIN is not as fortunate with racial inclusion, which is a particular problem of representation for our Caribbean members. I think, but can't prove, that problems include a disparity in travel costs, relatively fewer organizations in the Caribbean relative to Canada/the U.S., and smaller organizations who are less able to lose a staff member for three days twice a year. I would like to think that American/Canadian ARIN members are welcoming of Caribbean members, but the problems are more logistical. Thanks for providing the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. I look forward to hearing from others. Especially anyone from the Caribbean, since I'm speaking largely from ignorance. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sat Mar 5 08:50:11 2016 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:50:11 +0100 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> > On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. I agree. >> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region,? Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I put together for the January ARIN board meeting. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Untitled.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 14223 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated by sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided our six elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for the U.S., 0.59 of a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the Caribbean. Personally, I wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so I proposed three seats for the U.S., two for Canada, and one for the Caribbean, which should give the Caribbean and Canada little cause for complaint. Thoughts? -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From cja at daydream.com Sat Mar 5 09:06:59 2016 From: cja at daydream.com (Cathy Aronson) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 07:06:59 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> Message-ID: Personally I believe that "diversity" is more than who is from which region. It you're still all middle aged white males then you still aren't diverse. Also if you don't have the expertise you need (like finance or whatever ) to get he job done that's a problem as well. Cathy Sent from a handheld device. > On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >> I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. > > I agree. > >>> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region,? > > Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I put together for the January ARIN board meeting. > > > > > This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated by sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided our six elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for the U.S., 0.59 of a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the Caribbean. Personally, I wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so I proposed three seats for the U.S., two for Canada, and one for the Caribbean, which should give the Caribbean and Canada little cause for complaint. > > Thoughts? > > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From woody at pch.net Sat Mar 5 09:33:49 2016 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:33:49 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> Message-ID: Didn't claim it solved all problems, just one. You have any counter-propositions, to move the conversation forward? -Bill > On Mar 5, 2016, at 14:07, Cathy Aronson wrote: > > Personally I believe that "diversity" is more than who is from which region. It you're still all middle aged white males then you still aren't diverse. Also if you don't have the expertise you need (like finance or whatever ) to get he job done that's a problem as well. > > Cathy > > Sent from a handheld device. > >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >>> I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. >> >> I agree. >> >>>> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region,? >> >> Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I put together for the January ARIN board meeting. >> >> >> >> >> This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated by sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided our six elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for the U.S., 0.59 of a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the Caribbean. Personally, I wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so I proposed three seats for the U.S., two for Canada, and one for the Caribbean, which should give the Caribbean and Canada little cause for complaint. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Consult >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From cja at daydream.com Sat Mar 5 09:41:36 2016 From: cja at daydream.com (Cj Aronson) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 07:41:36 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> Message-ID: I do think that criteria the nomcom uses needs to be more transparent. I think that each year's nomcom should be seeking out candidates that can fill expertise and diversity requirements. The community should know what these requirements are so they can make an informed decision about who to vote for. If the board desperately needs CFO-like expertise then the community should know that. ----Cathy {?,?} (( )) ? ? On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > Didn't claim it solved all problems, just one. You have any > counter-propositions, to move the conversation forward? > > > -Bill > > > > On Mar 5, 2016, at 14:07, Cathy Aronson wrote: > > > > Personally I believe that "diversity" is more than who is from which > region. It you're still all middle aged white males then you still aren't > diverse. Also if you don't have the expertise you need (like finance or > whatever ) to get he job done that's a problem as well. > > > > Cathy > > > > Sent from a handheld device. > > > >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > >>> I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a > company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota > seat. > >> > >> I agree. > >> > >>>> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, > "Someone from the Caribbean region,? > >> > >> Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I put > together for the January ARIN board meeting. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult > intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated by > sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided our six > elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for the U.S., 0.59 of > a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the Caribbean. Personally, I > wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so I proposed three seats for the > U.S., two for Canada, and one for the Caribbean, which should give the > Caribbean and Canada little cause for complaint. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Consult > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sat Mar 5 09:41:23 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:41:23 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <073EE0D6-DB01-4DE5-A914-8E6AED83C9CE@arin.net> On Mar 5, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Lee Howard > wrote: From: John Curran > > Regarding specifically why legal background might be desirable of a Board > member, I don?t think that is necessary any more desirable than a Board > member with specific technology background (because in either case we > can contract for the specific expertise to advise the Board) - however, the > Board sought to generalize the conditions where the appointment might > be applicable, and included both of these options as well as the geographic > and gender diversity options. It's weird. It's particularly weird to group legal/business/technical/gender/geographic balance together. It was expansion of an existing mechanism to allow the Board to have the advantage of more diversity of backgrounds if it felt such was necessary - I am certain that there are other approaches that would suffice, but this was readily available with minimal of change. Would you suggest a different approach? I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. The person seated there for gender or geographic reasons would likely be treated differently than elected Board members, and would know they were seated for diversity (and suspect that ability was less a factor) which would affect their contribution to Board work. Quite possibly - do you believe the proposed Bylaw changes in this area should not proceed as a result? I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region," because there are Internet practicalities there that are different from the rest of ARIN's service area. I would also like to see racial and gender diversity. > Could you elaborate on how you feel this should be accomplished? (if not > per the mechanism in the proposed bylaws change) ARIN already does meeting fellowships, and I believe these include mentors. That's a very good start. What's the return rate for fellows? Where is ARIN's harrassment policy? It's Meeting Code of Conduct? Have you provided Ally Skills training to Board, AC, and staff, so people know how to handle sub-harrassment events? Does ARIN's PDP allow for multiple styles of contribution, or is it dominated by people who dominate discussion? Have you thought about offering day care, so parents can attend meetings? Have you consulted with professionals? (another friend of mine is a STEM Inclusion consultant in the DC Area, and former president of a science association you've heard of, if you need a reference) ARIN has harassment and diversity training (as well as appropriate policies) for staff, but it is unclear how this plays into the election of Board members by the community at large. In particular, we have not lacked diverse candidates for the ARIN Board of Trustees, but have not seemed to seen any elected. In other words, take the long road: make sure ARIN is a place where diverse contributors feel their input is welcomed and valued, enable them to make profound contributions, and the members will take care of leadership diversity. Point taken - If you have specific suggestions regarding how to improve ARIN?s openness to diverse input hen I would definitely welcome such? We have a solid policies and training for staff, but I am unsure how that affects election outcomes (i.e. are you suggesting ARIN conduct diversity training for Members?) The NomCom has slated qualified candidates who would provide that diversity, and the Members have chosen not to elect them. > To be clear, the members chose to elect other candidates over the candidates > which would provide more diversity, but that was not any indication of lack of > qualification or desirability, but more a reflection of availability of Board seats. If that were the case, then adding another elected Board seat would solve the problem. "Not enough Board seats" is exactly the same as "somebody else won" or "we didn't lose, we just ran out of time." (Vince Lombardi) That is certainly one approach - do you have a specific proposal? I don't think the Board should revise the Bylaws because it is unhappy with the way the Members voted. > Not at all, but the Board also needs to make sure that it has sufficient breadth > of background in order to do an adequate job. This has been recognized for > some time with respect to financial background, and the Board (looking at the > same issues as you cite above regarding diversity) felt that the existing eighth > trustee appointment might be helpful in this regard. Again, if you feel there is > a better mechanism, please elaborate on your proposal. If geographic diversity is critical, then follow the practice of ICANN, AfriNIC, and have one or two seats reserved for each part of ARIN's geographic constituency. One each from Canada, Caribbean and islands, and the U.S., and four At-Large. I believe that Bill Woodcock posted an outline of such an approach; with 6 elected seats, his distribution worked out to 1, 2, and 3 seats for Caribbean, Canada, and US sectors respectively. One also needs to determine which members vote for which sector seats elections (and the qualifications to be candidate for a specific sector) in order to have a complete view of a sector-based Board proposal, but it?s a good start. As for professional competency, the Board has long enjoyed the advice of qualified outside legal counsel, and specifically charters the NomCom to find candidates who have business and technology experience. If somehow the Board lost all of its business experience, hiring business counsel would be advisable. Business expertise at some level is fairly fundamental to Trustee responsibilities; i.e. while it is always possible to educate folks without any experience in such, it is fairly important that a sizable proportion of the Board have solid business backgrounds of one form or another, since it is ultimately the Board?s business judgement which is given a level of deference in legal matters. VI.4.IV (I think) This should stay. There are reasons a Trustee might need to be removed that would be better done by the Board than the Membership. For instance, if a health issue precludes satisfactorily performing, the full membership should not need to know the details. > As it turns out, this change is necessary for compliance with the Virginia law under > which we operate (Va. Code ? 13.1-860.B.) Nothing prevents an elected Board > member from resigning if so desired, and this likely would occur in situations where > their performance impacted the Board to point of raising the removal issue. Ah. Well, I support compliance with the law. Always a good thing. > (missing period) A Trustee may be removed from office, with or without cause, by a successful recall petition and vote process initiated by the General Members Upon receipt That's the redline version. Period needed after "General Members" or it changes the sense of the sentence. Thanks - corrected! Summary of the important part: I actually think ARIN does fairly well with gender inclusion, having had quite a few women on the AC, and at least one transgendered member. ARIN does suffer from the fact that few women have business leadership positions in technology, and so there's a paltry pool of potential Board members. I have a feeling that IP Analysts are often not in the line of succession to top ranks, so those who have the best-informed opinions on ARIN's policies are less likely to be great Board candidates. I don't think ARIN can or should alter technology career tracks, although giving participants knowledge that enables them to contribute better to their home organizations benefits everyone. ARIN is not as fortunate with racial inclusion, which is a particular problem of representation for our Caribbean members. I think, but can't prove, that problems include a disparity in travel costs, relatively fewer organizations in the Caribbean relative to Canada/the U.S., and smaller organizations who are less able to lose a staff member for three days twice a year. I would like to think that American/Canadian ARIN members are welcoming of Caribbean members, but the problems are more logistical. Thanks for providing the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. I look forward to hearing from others. Especially anyone from the Caribbean, since I'm speaking largely from ignorance. Understood, and thanks for the feedback! /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 7 17:49:37 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:49:37 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> Message-ID: <86023307-7037-4DF1-A0A8-9B83F0B812E0@delong.com> Calling what happens in AfriNIC ?solved? is an interesting choice of words. The AfriNIC system is a bit more complicated as is the problem there. Each of the ?regions? within AfriNIC?s service area contains one country that would outright dominate any regional election making it impossible to recruit or elect candidates from the other countries. For example, South Africa would completely dominate the southern region, Nigeria would completely dominate the Western region, etc. AfriNIC somewhat gets around this by requiring candidates to be ?resident? in the region they theoretically represent, but the seats are elected by the membership at large, not by the members from within their region. I would not advocate such a thing in the ARIN region. I did like the idea of one board member from each sub-region (1 from Canada, 1 from US, 1 from Caribbean) plus 3 elected at large and one (appointed unlimited term) CEO. I?m uncertain of the need for the potential 8th board member. I agree that creating a ?quota slot? is a bad idea for the reasons outlined. If we do go to a geographic system, I?d like to make sure that any sub-regionalized board members are both resident in the specified sub-region and elected by members from within the specified sub-region based on the ORG?s registered address in the ARIN database. However, that would leave the question as to what sub-region would get Antarctica, US minor outlying islands, etc. if and/or when we ever have any members in any of those locations. Owen > On Mar 5, 2016, at 05:50 , Bill Woodcock wrote: > > >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >> I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. > > I agree. > >>> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region,? > > Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I put together for the January ARIN board meeting. > > > > This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated by sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided our six elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for the U.S., 0.59 of a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the Caribbean. Personally, I wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so I proposed three seats for the U.S., two for Canada, and one for the Caribbean, which should give the Caribbean and Canada little cause for complaint. > > Thoughts? > > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From andrew.dul at quark.net Mon Mar 7 19:43:51 2016 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:43:51 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> Message-ID: <56DE2047.1080009@quark.net> Would there be value in considering the addition of appointed non-voting members of the board? Clearly one who is appointed to this seat(s) would not be a full member and thus doesn't change the current voting structure (so it looks less like a quota seat), but it might be a way to signal to the membership for the next year's election that an individual who was appointed merits serious consideration as a regular elected board member. Andrew On 3/5/2016 6:41 AM, Cj Aronson wrote: > I do think that criteria the nomcom uses needs to be more > transparent. I think that each year's nomcom should be seeking out > candidates that can fill expertise and diversity requirements. The > community should know what these requirements are so they can make an > informed decision about who to vote for. If the board desperately > needs CFO-like expertise then the community should know that. > > ----Cathy > > > {?,?} > (( )) > ? ? > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Bill Woodcock > wrote: > > Didn't claim it solved all problems, just one. You have any > counter-propositions, to move the conversation forward? > > > -Bill > > > > On Mar 5, 2016, at 14:07, Cathy Aronson > wrote: > > > > Personally I believe that "diversity" is more than who is from > which region. It you're still all middle aged white males then you > still aren't diverse. Also if you don't have the expertise you > need (like finance or whatever ) to get he job done that's a > problem as well. > > > > Cathy > > > > Sent from a handheld device. > > > >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Bill Woodcock > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard > wrote: > >>> I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion > Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat > would feel like a quota seat. > >> > >> I agree. > >> > >>>> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially > meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region,? > >> > >> Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I > put together for the January ARIN board meeting. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult > intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated > by sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided > our six elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for > the U.S., 0.59 of a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the > Caribbean. Personally, I wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so > I proposed three seats for the U.S., two for Canada, and one for > the Caribbean, which should give the Caribbean and Canada little > cause for complaint. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-Consult > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Consult Mailing > >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net ). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please > contact the ARIN Member Services > >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 7 20:01:25 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:01:25 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes In-Reply-To: <56DE2047.1080009@quark.net> References: <5B987B5C-C00C-4DCF-B1CE-07919CA716EF@corp.arin.net> <888713228.4184673.1457184733147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <0B26FB59-7F43-46FF-A64D-9744C25FBEC0@pch.net> <56DE2047.1080009@quark.net> Message-ID: <920867A3-BF2C-4958-B53F-1137FE72BF45@delong.com> I don?t think creating a second class of citizenship on the board sends the right message at all. Owen > On Mar 7, 2016, at 16:43 , Andrew Dul wrote: > > Would there be value in considering the addition of appointed non-voting members of the board? Clearly one who is appointed to this seat(s) would not be a full member and thus doesn't change the current voting structure (so it looks less like a quota seat), but it might be a way to signal to the membership for the next year's election that an individual who was appointed merits serious consideration as a regular elected board member. > > Andrew > > On 3/5/2016 6:41 AM, Cj Aronson wrote: >> I do think that criteria the nomcom uses needs to be more transparent. I think that each year's nomcom should be seeking out candidates that can fill expertise and diversity requirements. The community should know what these requirements are so they can make an informed decision about who to vote for. If the board desperately needs CFO-like expertise then the community should know that. >> >> ----Cathy >> >> >> {?,?} >> (( )) >> ? ? >> >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Bill Woodcock > wrote: >> Didn't claim it solved all problems, just one. You have any counter-propositions, to move the conversation forward? >> >> >> -Bill >> >> >> > On Mar 5, 2016, at 14:07, Cathy Aronson < cja at daydream.com > wrote: >> > >> > Personally I believe that "diversity" is more than who is from which region. It you're still all middle aged white males then you still aren't diverse. Also if you don't have the expertise you need (like finance or whatever ) to get he job done that's a problem as well. >> > >> > Cathy >> > >> > Sent from a handheld device. >> > >> >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Bill Woodcock < woody at pch.net > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Lee Howard < spiffnolee at yahoo.com > wrote: >> >>> I spoke with a friend who leads Diversity and Inclusion Programs for a company we've all heard of, who said that this seat would feel like a quota seat. >> >> >> >> I agree. >> >> >> >>>> I would like to see better geographic diversity, essentially meaning, "Someone from the Caribbean region,? >> >> >> >> Since I like to make trouble, please find attached a slide I put together for the January ARIN board meeting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This is, essentially, how AfriNIC resolved their very difficult intra-regional representation problem. They have seats allocated by sub-region, and candidates run for a seat. If you just divided our six elected seats up by population, you?d get 5.33 seats for the U.S., 0.59 of a seat for Canada, and 0.08 of a seat for the Caribbean. Personally, I wouldn?t like to be divided into .33, so I proposed three seats for the U.S., two for Canada, and one for the Caribbean, which should give the Caribbean and Canada little cause for complaint. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ARIN-Consult >> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing >> >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net ). >> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services >> >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Consult >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 14 14:08:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:08:05 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> Message-ID: <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> So I have a couple of questions? In trying to parse the combination of the table and the text under ?End Users / Assignments?, it?s completely unclear to me what happens going forward. Currently, I have 2 ORG IDs as an artifact of ARIN accounting irregularities. (inability to treat LRSA and RSA as a single ORG) Some of the text seems to indicate that I have the option of no change from current billing practices. Some of the text seems to indicate that I?m going to fee-per-ORG rather than fee-per-resource. Some of the text seems to indicate that I can choose one or the other of these. No mention is made of how any of this relates to LRSA with price increase limitations. Does this mean I?m going to get double-billed? One of my ORG-IDs relates to my LRSA (which I now regret signing even more than before). The other one relates to my IPv6 resources. Both are end-user. My non-LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $100/year and contains one resource. My LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $175/year and will hit $200/year in the next billing cycle (under the current scheme). My LRSA ORG-ID has a contractual restriction of $25/year price increases. My non-LRSA ORG-ID is subject to whatever form of pillaging the board chooses to engage in. To further complicate the matter, my RSA resources are 3X-Small. My LRSA are 2X-Small. So, under this new change, which outcome am I facing? 1. $200 -> $500 over the next 9 years for the LRSA ORG-ID + $250/year for the non-LRSA (and 2 votes) 2. $300 -> $500 total over the next 9 years (under the current structure my next year bill would be $200(LRSA)+$100(RSA)) 3. $500/year immediately for everything 4. $300/year in perpetuity, but no membership 5. $450/year immediately ($200 LRSA + $250 RSA) and membership for the RSA resources, but not for LRSA? The original promise made to me by multiple members of the board and ARIN staff at the time was that by signing the LRSA, the cost of my non-legacy resources and legacy resources would mean that I wasn?t effectively paying anything above the cost of the non-legacy resources so I might as well bring the legacy resources under LRSA since there was no economic penalty. Further, it would protect my total price increase to not more than $25/year. The board chose to violate that original promise with the previous fee schedule when they decided to itemize end-users instead of having a per-ORG fee. Now, there is the potential to restore that agreement (to some extent). There are things about the new structure that I like: 1. Membership for end-users included in their price. 2. Fee per ORG rather than fee per resource. 3. Potentially a return to the promised slow-ramp on fees to LRSA users. But I?d love to hear not only which of the 5 billing possibilities above (and possibly more I haven?t thought of) ARIN will consider valid and which would be rejected and why. I?d also like to know which one ARIN will default to if I don?t specify. Thanks, Owen > On Mar 14, 2016, at 07:02 , ARIN wrote: > > At their meeting on 10 December 2015, the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted a new fee schedule that will be effective 1 July 2016. The new fee schedule is the outcome of a multi-year community consultation process and includes the following changes: > > > Creation of four new service categories: 3X-small, 3X-large, 4X-large, and 5X-large; these are intended to further recover ARIN's costs across a broader set of service categories which more closely align with the benefits received > > > Realignment of the IPv6 and IPv4 resource limits for each category to provide for more cost-effective IPv6 usage > > > End user organizations may now choose to receive ARIN services via a Registration Services Plan (the same services and fee package provided to ISPs) ? those which do so become ARIN Members (with associated voting rights in ARIN elections) as well as the capability to report reassignment information and/or provide utilization data via the Shared Whois Project (SWIP) > > These changes further balance overall fees so that customers receiving comparable services are paying comparable fees where feasible, and also enable a reduction in many cases to the fees for smaller ISPs. > > The pending fee schedule is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/2016_fee_schedule.html > > ARIN has developed a tool to allow customers to view an estimate of their fees under the new schedule: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/calculator.html > > Please review the Fee Schedule FAQ page for details on the changes: > > https://www.arin.net/fees/faq_fee_schedule.html > > If you have additional questions, please contact billing at arin.net or submit a request via Ask ARIN while logged into your ARIN Online account. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Announce > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 14 15:44:10 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:44:10 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mar 14, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: So I have a couple of questions? In trying to parse the combination of the table and the text under ?End Users / Assignments?, it?s completely unclear to me what happens going forward. Owen - Thanks for posting these questions - it is a good reminder of how complicated this can be for normal folks (as opposed to the myself and the staff who deal with these matters each day.) Currently, I have 2 ORG IDs as an artifact of ARIN accounting irregularities. (inability to treat LRSA and RSA as a single ORG) It?s actually not accounting irregularities: each agreement represents a distinct relationship with ARIN - many organizations find the ability to have multiple relationships useful for various reasons (e.g. business units, different terms from older agreements, etc.) Some of the text seems to indicate that I have the option of no change from current billing practices. That is correct. If you are an end-user (or legacy holder billed as same), then you do not experience any difference as a fee schedule change (unless you opt to do so as discussed further below.) You may confirm this by running the Fee estimator for the new schedule referenced in the original announcement (available here - https://www.arin.net/fees/calculator.html) Some of the text seems to indicate that I?m going to fee-per-ORG rather than fee-per-resource. If you choose to do so, you will now be able to switch to a registration services plan (the same fee schedule used by all ISPs, and including ARIN Membership) Some of the text seems to indicate that I can choose one or the other of these. Correct - once the new fee schedule is in effect, you may indicate that you?d like to switch to a registration services plan (if you prefer such), and your billing will change accordingly. No mention is made of how any of this relates to LRSA with price increase limitations. You will be billed accordingly to each agreement you have with ARIN, as they have different terms and fees. If you consolidate, you will be billed under the single RSA that results. Does this mean I?m going to get double-billed? You will not. My non-LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $100/year and contains one resource. My LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $175/year and will hit $200/year in the next billing cycle (under the current scheme). Correct. The forthcoming fee schedule is regarding the new registration services fees for ISPs, whereby we shift the categories to allow more IPv6 resources in each category, as well as opening them up to end-users who prefer this type of schedule. My LRSA ORG-ID has a contractual restriction of $25/year price increases. My non-LRSA ORG-ID is subject to whatever form of pillaging the board chooses to engage in. To further complicate the matter, my RSA resources are 3X-Small. My LRSA are 2X-Small. The various sizes only matters if you switch to registrations services plan billing, and that may not make sense for those with relatively few IP address blocks and ASNs So, under this new change, which outcome am I facing? The same as you are presently paying (but per the agreement you signed, you should be aware that the LRSA fees may increase up to $25/year) There are things about the new structure that I like: 1. Membership for end-users included in their price. 2. Fee per ORG rather than fee per resource. 3. Potentially a return to the promised slow-ramp on fees to LRSA users. But I?d love to hear not only which of the 5 billing possibilities above (and possibly more I haven?t thought of) ARIN will consider valid and which would be rejected and why. I?d also like to know which one ARIN will default to if I don?t specify. As noted above, your fees do not change as a result of the new fee schedule, they will be as you noted earlier (and repeated again below - My non-LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $100/year and contains one resource. My LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $175/year and will hit $200/year in the next billing cycle (under the current scheme). If you wished to, you could switch to a registration services plan, and you would be at the 2X small for all resources combined at $500/year. This would also cover the registration services for all ASN that you have and would include ARIN Membership. Again, I don?t know if it makes sense given your total resource holdings, but it will now be an option. Thanks! (and do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions.) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 14 15:52:43 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:52:43 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> Message-ID: <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> >>> My non-LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $100/year and contains one resource. >> >>> My LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $175/year and will hit $200/year in the next billing cycle (under the current scheme). > > If you wished to, you could switch to a registration services plan, and you would be > at the 2X small for all resources combined at $500/year. This would also cover the > registration services for all ASN that you have and would include ARIN Membership. > Again, I don?t know if it makes sense given your total resource holdings, but it will now > be an option. > > Thanks! (and do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions.) Going to take you up on that? Is it possible to switch to the registration services program without changing my LRSA to an RSA? Is it possible to do so without getting double-billed? Owen From bill at herrin.us Mon Mar 14 16:02:18 2016 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:02:18 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:44 PM, John Curran wrote: > If you choose to do so, you will now be able to switch to a registration > services plan (the same fee schedule used by all ISPs, > and including ARIN Membership) Hi John, There is a presentation issue here. Folks reading this (e.g. me) will naturally skip forward to the chart and become alarmed when there is no chart for classic end-user fees. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 14 16:22:48 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:22:48 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> Message-ID: <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net> On Mar 14, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>>> My non-LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $100/year and contains one resource. >>> >>>> My LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $175/year and will hit $200/year in the next billing cycle (under the current scheme). >> >> If you wished to, you could switch to a registration services plan, and you would be >> at the 2X small for all resources combined at $500/year. This would also cover the >> registration services for all ASN that you have and would include ARIN Membership. >> Again, I don?t know if it makes sense given your total resource holdings, but it will now >> be an option. >> >> Thanks! (and do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions.) > > Going to take you up on that? > > Is it possible to switch to the registration services program without changing my LRSA to an RSA? An organization with resources under an LRSA may opt to switch to registration services plan, but it would only cover the resources under that agreement. > Is it possible to do so without getting double-billed? You get billed according to the terms of each agreement you have with ARIN, based on the resources and services received. At present, you have two agreements and pay for registration services for the respective resources under each agreement. Under the present fee schedule, switching either of these to a registration services plan is unlikely to make much sense given the relatively small number of resources under each. As I previously noted, you could consolidate and then opt for a registration services plan - this would provide you one relationship with ARIN (including ARIN membership) but it would appear the total fees would be larger than you presently pay for end-user and legacy maintenance fees. Thank you for the questions ? these are quite likely to be of help to others reading as well! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 14 16:28:07 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:28:07 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> Message-ID: <712E9A06-92C1-4A7D-91B0-65525B6EF114@arin.net> On Mar 14, 2016, at 4:02 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:44 PM, John Curran wrote: >> If you choose to do so, you will now be able to switch to a registration >> services plan (the same fee schedule used by all ISPs, >> and including ARIN Membership) > > Hi John, > > There is a presentation issue here. Folks reading this (e.g. me) will > naturally skip forward to the chart and become alarmed when there is > no chart for classic end-user fees. Bill - The end-user fees did not change, but I do take the point (as the structure of the overall page was reorganized.) We?ll look into see if we can clarify it more - we are challenged because the fees schedule is a reference for both new and existing users, ISP and end-user, as well as LRSA customers. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Mon Mar 14 17:21:22 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:21:22 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net> References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net> Message-ID: <5BC2ACFF-BD03-4EC3-B070-965774B2CB0C@umn.edu> John, Would you please clarify what seems to be a $150 cap per Legacy organization per year according to the fee schedule quoted from the website below. However, when I consult the fee estimate for our legacy org ID I get a $175, maybe I'm misinterpreting what it says. So, help me understand the last sentence. Thanks --- Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or ASN that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on 22 December 1997. Annual Annual maintenance fees are $100 for each IPv4 address block, $100 for each ASN assigned to the organization, and are billed per Organization ID. Up to a $150 limit regardless of the number of resources held under an LRSA. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Mar 15 10:13:21 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:13:21 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: <5BC2ACFF-BD03-4EC3-B070-965774B2CB0C@umn.edu> References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net> <5BC2ACFF-BD03-4EC3-B070-965774B2CB0C@umn.edu> Message-ID: David - The fee estimator did not have the appropriate limit for legacy address holders under LRSA configured and enabled, and this has now been fixed. We?ve also clarified some of the wording the Pending Fee Schedule (although I expect more improvements in this area forthcoming, such as Bill Herrin?s suggestion to show maintainance fees in tabular form.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Mar 14, 2016, at 5:21 PM, David Farmer > wrote: John, Would you please clarify what seems to be a $150 cap per Legacy organization per year according to the fee schedule quoted from the website below. However, when I consult the fee estimate for our legacy org ID I get a $175, maybe I'm misinterpreting what it says. So, help me understand the last sentence. Thanks --- Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or ASN that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on 22 December 1997. Annual Annual maintenance fees are $100 for each IPv4 address block, $100 for each ASN assigned to the organization, and are billed per Organization ID. Up to a $150 limit regardless of the number of resources held under an LRSA. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Mar 15 15:13:06 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:13:06 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net> References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net> Message-ID: > On Mar 14, 2016, at 13:22 , John Curran wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>>>> My non-LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $100/year and contains one resource. >>>> >>>>> My LRSA ORG-ID is currently billed $175/year and will hit $200/year in the next billing cycle (under the current scheme). >>> >>> If you wished to, you could switch to a registration services plan, and you would be >>> at the 2X small for all resources combined at $500/year. This would also cover the >>> registration services for all ASN that you have and would include ARIN Membership. >>> Again, I don?t know if it makes sense given your total resource holdings, but it will now >>> be an option. >>> >>> Thanks! (and do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions.) >> >> Going to take you up on that? >> >> Is it possible to switch to the registration services program without changing my LRSA to an RSA? > > An organization with resources under an LRSA may opt to switch to > registration services plan, but it would only cover the resources under > that agreement. > >> Is it possible to do so without getting double-billed? > > You get billed according to the terms of each agreement you have with > ARIN, based on the resources and services received. At present, you > have two agreements and pay for registration services for the respective > resources under each agreement. Under the present fee schedule, > switching either of these to a registration services plan is unlikely to > make much sense given the relatively small number of resources under > each. As I previously noted, you could consolidate and then opt for > a registration services plan - this would provide you one relationship > with ARIN (including ARIN membership) but it would appear the total > fees would be larger than you presently pay for end-user and legacy > maintenance fees. I would love to consolidate under my LRSA, but I suspect ARIN won?t allow that. Owen > > Thank you for the questions ? these are quite likely to be of help to > others reading as well! > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Mar 15 15:26:39 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:26:39 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Board Adopts New Fee Schedule Effective 1 July 2016 In-Reply-To: References: <56E6C469.6010104@arin.net> <0E7B20DD-761B-461E-8C90-A811B5D6F911@delong.com> <706706A3-3C41-491B-AF74-BF735740B50E@delong.com> <6E606A14-B62D-4843-BE6F-5584541BD569@arin.net>, Message-ID: <225FC923-3D8C-4CAA-BE26-8BB747574403@arin.net> On Mar 15, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Mar 14, 2016, at 13:22 , John Curran > wrote: ... As I previously noted, you could consolidate and then opt for a registration services plan - this would provide you one relationship with ARIN (including ARIN membership) but it would appear the total fees would be larger than you presently pay for end-user and legacy maintenance fees. I would love to consolidate under my LRSA, but I suspect ARIN won't allow that. Alas, your LRSA is only applicable to resources issued to you before ARIN's formation, so that is not an option. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Mon Mar 21 09:04:53 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:04:53 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan Message-ID: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> In 2011, ARIN published IPv4 countdown procedures to ensure fair and equitable administrative processing of IPv4 requests leading up to the IPv4 depletion event. These countdown procedures have been meticulously followed for the past five years. We have been inside the 4th and final phase of this plan since April of 2014 when ARIN reached one remaining /8 equivalent. This final phase of the plan includes the processing of all IPv4 requests on a "first in, first out" basis (chronologically based on time stamp) and team review for all IPv4 requests, regardless of size. You can find the processing procedures for each phase on ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan page at the ARIN public website. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown_plan.html ARIN's IPv4 free pool depleted in September of 2015. Even though the depletion event has already occurred, ARIN staff continues to apply Phase 4 countdown procedures to IPv4 free pool requests today. With the exception of requests that fall under NRPM 4.4 (micro-allocations) and 4.10 (dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment), all IPv4 requests that qualify for an allocation/assignment are destined for the Waiting List for Unmet Requests. Since the waiting list started in 2015, over 300 organizations have been added. As the waiting list continues to grow, there is diminishing likelihood new additions will receive IPv4 blocks resulting from returns or IANA distributions in the coming years. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html ARIN staff is considering the retirement of the IPv4 Countdown Plan. This would involve the cessation of Phase 4 processing procedures in our future review of IPv4 requests that are destined for the waiting list for unmet requests. IPv4 request tickets would continue to be responded to in generally the same number of days across the many different open requests, but would no longer be processed on a strict "first in, first out" basis. We would also discontinue the team review requirement for IPv4 request tickets. Removing these procedures would allow the recovered staff time to be redirected to other registration related work activities inside the ARIN Registration Services Department, such as handling the increasing number of transfers. We seek your comment on the possible retirement of ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. This consultation period will close at 5:00 PM EDT, 22 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 10:22:26 2016 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> Message-ID: That sounds like a good idea to me. It sends the (correct) signal that the waiting list is unlikely to get people the addresses they need, so there's no point in being strict about wait list order. Rather, it is more important to get everyone's request approved promptly so they can move on to acquiring space via transfer. Freeing up ARIN staff time to focus on more important things is also a win.? -Scott On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:04 AM -0700, "ARIN" wrote: In 2011, ARIN published IPv4 countdown procedures to ensure fair and equitable administrative processing of IPv4 requests leading up to the IPv4 depletion event. These countdown procedures have been meticulously followed for the past five years. We have been inside the 4th and final phase of this plan since April of 2014 when ARIN reached one remaining /8 equivalent. This final phase of the plan includes the processing of all IPv4 requests on a "first in, first out" basis (chronologically based on time stamp) and team review for all IPv4 requests, regardless of size. You can find the processing procedures for each phase on ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan page at the ARIN public website. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown_plan.html ARIN's IPv4 free pool depleted in September of 2015. Even though the depletion event has already occurred, ARIN staff continues to apply Phase 4 countdown procedures to IPv4 free pool requests today. With the exception of requests that fall under NRPM 4.4 (micro-allocations) and 4.10 (dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment), all IPv4 requests that qualify for an allocation/assignment are destined for the Waiting List for Unmet Requests. Since the waiting list started in 2015, over 300 organizations have been added. As the waiting list continues to grow, there is diminishing likelihood new additions will receive IPv4 blocks resulting from returns or IANA distributions in the coming years. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html ARIN staff is considering the retirement of the IPv4 Countdown Plan. This would involve the cessation of Phase 4 processing procedures in our future review of IPv4 requests that are destined for the waiting list for unmet requests. IPv4 request tickets would continue to be responded to in generally the same number of days across the many different open requests, but would no longer be processed on a strict "first in, first out" basis. We would also discontinue the team review requirement for IPv4 request tickets. Removing these procedures would allow the recovered staff time to be redirected to other registration related work activities inside the ARIN Registration Services Department, such as handling the increasing number of transfers. We seek your comment on the possible retirement of ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. This consultation period will close at 5:00 PM EDT, 22 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 21 10:26:24 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:26:24 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> Message-ID: <92063219-F9E4-463B-9101-F9C1B7C2E9D8@corp.arin.net> On Mar 21, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > That sounds like a good idea to me. It sends the (correct) signal that the waiting list is unlikely to get people the addresses they need, so there's no point in being strict about wait list order. Rather, it is more important to get everyone's request approved promptly so they can move on to acquiring space via transfer. Freeing up ARIN staff time to focus on more important things is also a win. Scott - That is our belief - the timestamp based and group review that was appropriate for strict sequencing of approvals had merit when we were approaching runout, but at this time is a significant sink of staff resources that could be better used elsewhere (transfer requests in particular) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at iptrading.com Mon Mar 21 11:13:24 2016 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:13:24 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> Message-ID: <002801d18384$3689b050$a39d10f0$@iptrading.com> Hi John, Transfer volume has increased significantly as noted. The processing time involved in transfers is way too long by today's standards. Money and documents can fly around the globe, but RIR processing does not fly. :-( Anything we can do to reduce the RIR processing time will be helpful. The retirement of the IPv4 Countdown plan will free ARIN time to expedite transfers. I support the change. Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com PS Does ARIN have stats on the time it takes transfers from initial request to Whois update? -----Original Message----- From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:05 AM To: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In 2011, ARIN published IPv4 countdown procedures to ensure fair and equitable administrative processing of IPv4 requests leading up to the IPv4 depletion event. These countdown procedures have been meticulously followed for the past five years. We have been inside the 4th and final phase of this plan since April of 2014 when ARIN reached one remaining /8 equivalent. This final phase of the plan includes the processing of all IPv4 requests on a "first in, first out" basis (chronologically based on time stamp) and team review for all IPv4 requests, regardless of size. You can find the processing procedures for each phase on ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan page at the ARIN public website. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown_plan.html ARIN's IPv4 free pool depleted in September of 2015. Even though the depletion event has already occurred, ARIN staff continues to apply Phase 4 countdown procedures to IPv4 free pool requests today. With the exception of requests that fall under NRPM 4.4 (micro-allocations) and 4.10 (dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment), all IPv4 requests that qualify for an allocation/assignment are destined for the Waiting List for Unmet Requests. Since the waiting list started in 2015, over 300 organizations have been added. As the waiting list continues to grow, there is diminishing likelihood new additions will receive IPv4 blocks resulting from returns or IANA distributions in the coming years. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html ARIN staff is considering the retirement of the IPv4 Countdown Plan. This would involve the cessation of Phase 4 processing procedures in our future review of IPv4 requests that are destined for the waiting list for unmet requests. IPv4 request tickets would continue to be responded to in generally the same number of days across the many different open requests, but would no longer be processed on a strict "first in, first out" basis. We would also discontinue the team review requirement for IPv4 request tickets. Removing these procedures would allow the recovered staff time to be redirected to other registration related work activities inside the ARIN Registration Services Department, such as handling the increasing number of transfers. We seek your comment on the possible retirement of ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. This consultation period will close at 5:00 PM EDT, 22 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 21 14:45:57 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:45:57 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fwd: [arin-announce] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> Message-ID: My concern with this would be its potential impact on requestors who choose to be placed on the waiting list. I would think that requests for IPv4 addresses (other than transfers) should be relatively low volume at this point and therefore the serialization of them shouldn?t pose that much of a burden. If this is impacting transfer requests, they should long since have been exempted from the phase 4 processing. Owen > Begin forwarded message: > > From: ARIN > Subject: [arin-announce] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan > Date: March 21, 2016 at 06:04:56 PDT > To: arin-announce at arin.net > > In 2011, ARIN published IPv4 countdown procedures to ensure fair and equitable administrative processing of IPv4 requests leading up to the IPv4 depletion event. These countdown procedures have been meticulously followed for the past five years. We have been inside the 4th and final phase of this plan since April of 2014 when ARIN reached one remaining /8 equivalent. This final phase of the plan includes the processing of all IPv4 requests on a "first in, first out" basis (chronologically based on time stamp) and team review for all IPv4 requests, regardless of size. > > You can find the processing procedures for each phase on ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan page at the ARIN public website. > > https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown_plan.html > > ARIN's IPv4 free pool depleted in September of 2015. Even though the depletion event has already occurred, ARIN staff continues to apply Phase 4 countdown procedures to IPv4 free pool requests today. With the exception of requests that fall under NRPM 4.4 (micro-allocations) and 4.10 (dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment), all IPv4 requests that qualify for an allocation/assignment are destined for the Waiting List for Unmet Requests. Since the waiting list started in 2015, over 300 organizations have been added. As the waiting list continues to grow, there is diminishing likelihood new additions will receive IPv4 blocks resulting from returns or IANA distributions in the coming years. > > https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html > > ARIN staff is considering the retirement of the IPv4 Countdown Plan. This would involve the cessation of Phase 4 processing procedures in our future review of IPv4 requests that are destined for the waiting list for unmet requests. IPv4 request tickets would continue to be responded to in generally the same number of days across the many different open requests, but would no longer be processed on a strict "first in, first out" basis. We would also discontinue the team review requirement for IPv4 request tickets. Removing these procedures would allow the recovered staff time to be redirected to other registration related work activities inside the ARIN Registration Services Department, such as handling the increasing number of transfers. > > We seek your comment on the possible retirement of ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan. > > Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. > > This consultation period will close at 5:00 PM EDT, 22 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Announce > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 21 15:03:31 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:03:31 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fwd: [arin-announce] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> Message-ID: <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> On Mar 21, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: My concern with this would be its potential impact on requestors who choose to be placed on the waiting list. Owen - Nominal to zero impact. At this point, anyone placed on the waiting list is unlikely to see any resources issued (ever), given that there are several hundred in front of them (and growing - see attached graph) I would think that requests for IPv4 addresses (other than transfers) should be relatively low volume at this point and therefore the serialization of them shouldn?t pose that much of a burden. One would think that, but we still receiving more than 100 requests per month for IPv4 assignments or allocations, and these (per the countdown procedures) must be processed by team review to insure maintenance of sequencing. Request stats are here: The requirement for the Registration Services team to gather and do serial processing of these requests significantly increases overall staff time per request, and does not appear to be particularly constructive use of resources given that (when approved), they are all then going to end of a very long waiting list? We can achieve the same result (and faster for everyone) if we eliminate the phase 4 team review processing. If this is impacting transfer requests, they should long since have been exempted from the phase 4 processing. Perhaps I was not clear - it is not the processing of transfers that is causing the impact; it is the processing of IPv4 assignment and allocation requests that results in a staff impact and consequently impacts processing of transfers. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN [cid:7BD583A4-519B-4DD4-A495-4FF9BC43B197 at fios-router.home] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 3.03.23 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 140306 bytes Desc: Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 3.03.23 PM.png URL: From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 15:22:14 2016 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> Message-ID: <1319544939.2768240.1458588134882.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Good idea.? Last I checked, in September, IANA will hand out a /18 equivalent to each RIR, with no single block larger than a /20. At /24 minimum allocation, ARIN could satisfy at most 64 organizations on the Waiting List, but actually only four [1]. I haven't looked to see how many more rounds IANA can do, but I don't think it's later than 2018 unless somebody returns an awful lot of address space to IANA. Lee [1] Thanks for this! https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html#report From: ARIN To: arin-consult at arin.net Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:04 AM Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In 2011, ARIN published IPv4 countdown procedures to ensure fair and equitable administrative processing of IPv4 requests leading up to the IPv4 depletion event. These countdown procedures have been meticulously followed for the past five years. We have been inside the 4th and final phase of this plan since April of 2014 when ARIN reached one remaining /8 equivalent. This final phase of the plan includes the processing of all IPv4 requests on a "first in, first out" basis (chronologically based on time stamp) and team review for all IPv4 requests, regardless of size. You can find the processing procedures for each phase on ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan page at the ARIN public website. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown_plan.html ARIN's IPv4 free pool depleted in September of 2015. Even though the depletion event has already occurred, ARIN staff continues to apply Phase 4 countdown procedures to IPv4 free pool requests today. With the exception of requests that fall under NRPM 4.4 (micro-allocations) and 4.10 (dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment), all IPv4 requests that qualify for an allocation/assignment are destined for the Waiting List for Unmet Requests. Since the waiting list started in 2015, over 300 organizations have been added. As the waiting list continues to grow, there is diminishing likelihood new additions will receive IPv4 blocks resulting from returns or IANA distributions in the coming years. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/waiting_list.html ARIN staff is considering the retirement of the IPv4 Countdown Plan. This would involve the cessation of Phase 4 processing procedures in our future review of IPv4 requests that are destined for the waiting list for unmet requests. IPv4 request tickets would continue to be responded to in generally the same number of days across the many different open requests, but would no longer be processed on a strict "first in, first out" basis. We would also discontinue the team review requirement for IPv4 request tickets. Removing these procedures would allow the recovered staff time to be redirected to other registration related work activities inside the ARIN Registration Services Department, such as handling the increasing number of transfers. We seek your comment on the possible retirement of ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. This consultation period will close at 5:00 PM EDT, 22 April 2016. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:26:38 2016 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fwd: [arin-announce] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Do we have any easy-to-pull stats on what % of requests that originally come in as regular IPv4 requests and placed on the waiting list eventually get fulfilled via transfer? (If it's not easy to calculate, don't bother: I think the arguments in favor of ending team review are strong enough without knowing).? -Scott On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:05 PM -0700, "John Curran" wrote: On Mar 21, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: My concern with this would be its potential impact on requestors who choose to be placed on the waiting list. Owen -? ? ?Nominal to zero impact. ? ?At this point, anyone placed on the waiting list is unlikely ? ?to see any resources issued (ever), given that there are several hundred in front of ? ?them (and growing - see attached graph) I would think that requests for IPv4 addresses (other than transfers) should be relatively low volume at this point and therefore the serialization of them shouldn?t pose that much of a burden. ? One would think that, but we still receiving more than 100 requests per month ? for IPv4 assignments or allocations, and these (per the countdown procedures) ? must be processed by team review to insure maintenance of sequencing. ? ? Request stats are here: ? The requirement for the Registration Services team to gather and do serial processing ? of these requests significantly increases overall staff time per request, and does not? ? appear to be particularly constructive use of resources given that (when approved),? ? they are all then going to end of a very long waiting list? ?We can achieve the same? ? result (and faster for everyone) if we eliminate the phase 4 team review processing. If this is impacting transfer requests, they should long since have been exempted from the phase 4 processing. ? Perhaps I was not clear - it is not the processing of transfers that is causing the ? impact; it is the processing of IPv4 assignment and allocation requests that results ? in a staff impact and consequently impacts processing of transfers. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 3.03.23 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 140306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sethm at rollernet.us Mon Mar 21 15:27:10 2016 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:27:10 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fwd: [arin-announce] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <56F04B0E.9040403@rollernet.us> On 3/21/16 12:03, John Curran wrote: > > One would think that, but we still receiving more than 100 requests > per month > for IPv4 assignments or allocations, and these (per the countdown > procedures) At this point it seems like ARIN could just say "sorry, no more IPv4 addresses are available" and skip straight to the waiting list. Why not defer the review process until (if) their number comes up on the wait list? ~Seth From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 21 15:45:33 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:45:33 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > Do we have any easy-to-pull stats on what % of requests that originally come in as regular IPv4 requests and placed on the waiting list eventually get fulfilled via transfer? (If it's not easy to calculate, don't bother: I think the arguments in favor of ending team review are strong enough without knowing). Scott - We haven?t been tracking whether a transfer recipient was previously on the waiting list (although it may be in the ticket notes since parties on the waiting list already have a determination of the qualified need for IPv4 resources); assembly of statistics for that purpose would be a manual process. We do know how many parties are coming off the waiting list due to resources becoming available - for example, when the IANA issued to ARIN a /15 worth of IPv4 resources from the returned address pool, we were able to fulfill six requests pending on the waiting list. [1] Given the size of the list, it is unlikely that parties being added presently will ever receive IPv4 resources (at least through the useful life of the IPv4 protocol.) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN [1] https://www.arin.net/announcements/2016/20160302.html From jcurran at arin.net Mon Mar 21 16:01:32 2016 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:01:32 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan (more re transfer processing stats) In-Reply-To: <002801d18384$3689b050$a39d10f0$@iptrading.com> References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> <002801d18384$3689b050$a39d10f0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > PS Does ARIN have stats on the time it takes transfers from initial request > to Whois update? > Mike - Not at present, but I?ve added them to the list of report requests. We do know that the average transfer request has quite a bit of ?customer wait time?, i.e. where ARIN asks for additional information, and then the ticket in on hold until the customer comes back. Also, after a brief review of transfer tickets from this year, it appears that the shortest processing time for an 8.2 to 8.3 request has been 3 days from request to Whois update - these are cases where the parties have all of their information available at the beginning of the process. As soon as we have statistics on the overall distribution of processing times, we?ll provide to the community. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Mon Mar 21 19:41:12 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:41:12 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> Message-ID: John, As others have said, the proposed changes seems reasonable and justified given current circumstances. A strict adherence to "first in, first out" for adding additional entries to the waiting list seems much less relevant at this point. Especially with the waiting list representing many times the IPv4 resources that seem likely to be made available to the free pool within the foreseeable future. Furthermore, as long as there is a sufficient waiting list for resources, a strict adherence to the order that requests are received seem unlikely to matter in the grand scheme of things, and placing requests on the waiting list in their order of approval without regard to the order the request was received seems sufficiently fair. My only suggestion would be to set a threshold for the community to revisit the issue. Such as if the waiting list were ever depleted to the point where the order that requests are received could be perceived to matter again. I'm not necessarily suggesting we should return to a strict adherence to "first in, first out" at such a point, just that it seems reasonable for the community to revisit the issue if/when we approach such a point. Such a trigger point seems fairly arbitrary, but ideally it should provide sufficient time for the community to reasonably consider the issue prior to depletion of the waiting list. Thirty(30) days seems sufficient time for the community to consider the issue. Therefore, I'd suggest to asking staff to trigger a review of the issue by the community when in their best estimation they believe we are within ninety(90) days, or less, of free pool resources being made available for which there would be no one on the waiting list eligible to receive. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:04 AM, ARIN wrote: > ... > > We seek your comment on the possible retirement of ARIN's IPv4 Countdown > Plan. > > Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. > > This consultation period will close at 5:00 PM EDT, 22 April 2016. Please > contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhett at netconsonance.com Mon Mar 21 23:41:31 2016 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:41:31 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <7452FE7F-00D5-4BCE-B32E-4DBF57095D82@netconsonance.com> > The requirement for the Registration Services team to gather and do serial processing > of these requests significantly increases overall staff time per request, and does not > appear to be particularly constructive use of resources given that (when approved), > they are all then going to end of a very long waiting list? We can achieve the same > result (and faster for everyone) if we eliminate the phase 4 team review processing. I suspect that the ?very long waiting list? itself presents numerous issues: if a request is approved today and satisfied in 2018, it may well be that the receiver is defunct in 2018 and the network op who filed the request just received a valuable, sellable asset. References: <56EFF178.3040709@arin.net> <851D9A0E-1149-4136-9904-B15A17B769F8@corp.arin.net> <7452FE7F-00D5-4BCE-B32E-4DBF57095D82@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: Per https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four181, all requests are subject to "a timely re-validation of the original request" before they can be fulfilled off the waiting list. So that part is already handled. Seth's suggestion was to "defer the review process until (if) their number comes up on the wait list", which I believe would require a change in policy, and probably isn't worthwhile, given that approval of a request not only places it on the wait list, but also serves as a pre-approval for receiving a transfer. -Scott On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: > > The requirement for the Registration Services team to gather and do > serial processing > > of these requests significantly increases overall staff time per > request, and does not > > appear to be particularly constructive use of resources given that > (when approved), > > they are all then going to end of a very long waiting list? We can > achieve the same > > result (and faster for everyone) if we eliminate the phase 4 team > review processing. > > I suspect that the ?very long waiting list? itself presents numerous > issues: if a request is approved today and satisfied in 2018, it may well > be that the receiver is defunct in 2018 and the network op who filed the > request just received a valuable, sellable asset. > I think that perhaps IPv4 usage and demand needs to be validated when the > resources are available, which is a reversal of all past policy. > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet > projects. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhett at netconsonance.com Tue Mar 22 01:01:58 2016 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:01:58 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation - Retirement of IPv4 Countdown Plan In-Reply-To: References: <56EFF175.6080701@arin.net> Message-ID: Agreed on all points. On Mar 21, 2016, at 4:41 PM, David Farmer wrote: > As others have said, the proposed changes seems reasonable and justified given current circumstances. A strict adherence to "first in, first out" for adding additional entries to the waiting list seems much less relevant at this point. Especially with the waiting list representing many times the IPv4 resources that seem likely to be made available to the free pool within the foreseeable future. Furthermore, as long as there is a sufficient waiting list for resources, a strict adherence to the order that requests are received seem unlikely to matter in the grand scheme of things, and placing requests on the waiting list in their order of approval without regard to the order the request was received seems sufficiently fair. > -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Tue Mar 29 13:35:44 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:35:44 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder: Consultation on Proposed Bylaws Changes Message-ID: <56FABCF0.70400@arin.net> As announced on 3 March 2016, the ARIN Board of Trustees has proposed changes to the ARIN Bylaws. Per Article X. Section 6.b. of the Bylaws, several of these changes require community notification and consultation before they can be adopted. ARIN is conducting this community consultation to obtain feedback on the proposed set of Bylaws changes. This notification and consultation period will close at 5 PM EDT, 2 April 2016. The proposed changes include: 1. Improving language for appointment of a Trustee for purposes of improving overall Board diversity of skills or background 2. Clarifying the staggering of terms for Trustee and Advisory Council members 3. Modifying the Trustee removal process to make removals by the Board of Trustees subject to membership ratification 4. Clarifying the process for interim appointments and partial terms 5. Changing the processes for Bylaws changes and Articles of Incorporation changes so all changes are sent to community consultation before final adoption by the Board of Trustees. A full redline version of the proposed changes are available for review at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/bylaws_proposed_2016.pdf Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. Please contact us at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, John Curran President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From David_Huberman at outlook.com Wed Mar 30 20:13:56 2016 From: David_Huberman at outlook.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:13:56 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fw: [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> Message-ID: Apologies, but I have this data analysis done, and I dont want to lose it. I can resend when the consultation officially opens. I just did a quick data analysis of the DFZ found on one of my routers. There are 601,729 unique routes originating from and transiting through 53,511 ASNs. 71,170 routes (11.8%) originate from or propagate through a 4-byte ASN. There are 10,244 (19.1%) unique 4-byte ASNs in my copy of the table. Given this data, I'm unclear why the registry should be treating 4-byte ASNs as anything but a single contiguous pool, as policy currently states. ________________________________________ From: arin-suggestions-bounces at arin.net on behalf of ARIN Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:28 PM To: arin-suggestions at arin.net Subject: [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs We received the following suggestion on 18 March: Suggestion Details: Description: Waiting list for 2 Byte ASNs Value to Community: One member said to me: Ticket from ARIN "We have noted your request for a 2-byte ASN. ARIN is out of 2-byte ASN's in its inventory. We get them returned voluntarily from time to time. If we have one at the time of issuance, we will issue it to your organization. If we do not have a 2-byte in inventory at that time, your organization will receive the standard 4-byte ASN. " Member comment "if they are really out - a waitinglist would be nice...." On 30 March, we sent the following response to the submitter: Thank you for your suggestion numbered 2016.04 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs. Background The NRPM included instructions in the past for ARIN staff to remove any distinction between 2-byte and 4-byte in the issuance of AS numbers. This particular policy language has since been retired in the NRPM. Staff has followed policy regarding issuance of AS numbers, but has often had lower numbered, classic 2-byte, AS numbers available over time. We would either receive them in our new delegations from the IANA, obtain them from customer returns of AS numbers, or through revocations of AS numbers due to non-payment of registration fees. Although ARIN expects to no longer receive AS numbers from the IANA inside the classic 2-byte range, we do expect to continue reclaiming them through returns and revocations going forward. Some AS number requests today continue to specifically ask for an AS number from the classic 2-byte range. In those situations we relay to the customer that we have noted their special request and that we will accommodate it at the issuance phase of the ticket process if one is available at the time. The Suggestion We understand your suggestion is to establish a waiting list for AS numbers from the classic 2-byte range for those customers who specifically request one when ARIN does not have them available. This waiting list would be similar to the IPv4 waiting list for unmet requests, but managed separately for AS numbers. Organizations would be placed on this AS number waiting list, and when one became available through reclamation at ARIN, it would be slated for the organization first on the waiting list. Staff Action ARIN staff can create a waiting list for 2-byte AS numbers if there is favor from the community to establish one. ARIN staff will open a consultation on the topic to gather feedback and take appropriate action based on information received through that process. Thank you for participating in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process. We will leave this suggestion open until a consultation has been completed on this topic and an implementation plan has been established. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ arin-suggestions mailing list arin-suggestions at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-suggestions From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 20:17:08 2016 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:17:08 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fw: [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> Message-ID: There are valid technical reasons, pertaining to communities, why ISP networks with multihomed downstream BGP customers would be better served by ASNs that can be represented by a two-byte number, with the other two bytes all zeros. Those technical reasons do not apply, AFAIK, to edge networks, only to transit providers with BGP-speaking customers who want to use communities to control route announcements. -Scott On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:13 PM, David Huberman wrote: > Apologies, but I have this data analysis done, and I dont want to lose > it. I can resend when the consultation officially opens. > > > I just did a quick data analysis of the DFZ found on one of my routers. > > There are 601,729 unique routes originating from and transiting through > 53,511 ASNs. > > 71,170 routes (11.8%) originate from or propagate through a 4-byte ASN. > There are 10,244 (19.1%) unique 4-byte ASNs in my copy of the table. > > Given this data, I'm unclear why the registry should be treating 4-byte > ASNs as anything but a single contiguous pool, as policy currently states. > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-suggestions-bounces at arin.net > on behalf of ARIN > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:28 PM > To: arin-suggestions at arin.net > Subject: [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List > for 2 Byte ASNs > > We received the following suggestion on 18 March: > > Suggestion Details: > > Description: Waiting list for 2 Byte ASNs > > Value to Community: One member said to me: > > Ticket from ARIN "We have noted your request for a 2-byte ASN. ARIN is > out of 2-byte ASN's in its inventory. We get them returned voluntarily > from time to time. If we have one at the time of issuance, we will issue > it to your organization. If we do not have a 2-byte in inventory at that > time, your organization will receive the standard 4-byte ASN. " > > Member comment "if they are really out - a waitinglist would be nice...." > > On 30 March, we sent the following response to the submitter: > > Thank you for your suggestion numbered 2016.04 - Waiting List for 2 Byte > ASNs. > > Background > > The NRPM included instructions in the past for ARIN staff to remove any > distinction between 2-byte and 4-byte in the issuance of AS numbers. > This particular policy language has since been retired in the NRPM. > > Staff has followed policy regarding issuance of AS numbers, but has > often had lower numbered, classic 2-byte, AS numbers available over > time. We would either receive them in our new delegations from the IANA, > obtain them from customer returns of AS numbers, or through revocations > of AS numbers due to non-payment of registration fees. Although ARIN > expects to no longer receive AS numbers from the IANA inside the classic > 2-byte range, we do expect to continue reclaiming them through returns > and revocations going forward. > > Some AS number requests today continue to specifically ask for an AS > number from the classic 2-byte range. In those situations we relay to > the customer that we have noted their special request and that we will > accommodate it at the issuance phase of the ticket process if one is > available at the time. > > The Suggestion > > We understand your suggestion is to establish a waiting list for AS > numbers from the classic 2-byte range for those customers who > specifically request one when ARIN does not have them available. This > waiting list would be similar to the IPv4 waiting list for unmet > requests, but managed separately for AS numbers. Organizations would be > placed on this AS number waiting list, and when one became available > through reclamation at ARIN, it would be slated for the organization > first on the waiting list. > > Staff Action > > ARIN staff can create a waiting list for 2-byte AS numbers if there is > favor from the community to establish one. ARIN staff will open a > consultation on the topic to gather feedback and take appropriate action > based on information received through that process. > > Thank you for participating in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion > Process. We will leave this suggestion open until a consultation has > been completed on this topic and an implementation plan has been > established. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > _______________________________________________ > arin-suggestions mailing list > arin-suggestions at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-suggestions > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 31 01:12:16 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:12:16 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> Message-ID: <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> Actually, the community thing is largely a red herring in lieu of ?convenience?. There are perfectly valid ways to address the community functionality desired using 4-byte ASNs. Owen > On Mar 30, 2016, at 17:17 , Scott Leibrand wrote: > > There are valid technical reasons, pertaining to communities, why ISP networks with multihomed downstream BGP customers would be better served by ASNs that can be represented by a two-byte number, with the other two bytes all zeros. Those technical reasons do not apply, AFAIK, to edge networks, only to transit providers with BGP-speaking customers who want to use communities to control route announcements. > > -Scott > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:13 PM, David Huberman > wrote: > Apologies, but I have this data analysis done, and I dont want to lose it. I can resend when the consultation officially opens. > > > I just did a quick data analysis of the DFZ found on one of my routers. > > There are 601,729 unique routes originating from and transiting through 53,511 ASNs. > > 71,170 routes (11.8%) originate from or propagate through a 4-byte ASN. > There are 10,244 (19.1%) unique 4-byte ASNs in my copy of the table. > > Given this data, I'm unclear why the registry should be treating 4-byte ASNs as anything but a single contiguous pool, as policy currently states. > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-suggestions-bounces at arin.net > on behalf of ARIN > > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:28 PM > To: arin-suggestions at arin.net > Subject: [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs > > We received the following suggestion on 18 March: > > Suggestion Details: > > Description: Waiting list for 2 Byte ASNs > > Value to Community: One member said to me: > > Ticket from ARIN "We have noted your request for a 2-byte ASN. ARIN is > out of 2-byte ASN's in its inventory. We get them returned voluntarily > from time to time. If we have one at the time of issuance, we will issue > it to your organization. If we do not have a 2-byte in inventory at that > time, your organization will receive the standard 4-byte ASN. " > > Member comment "if they are really out - a waitinglist would be nice...." > > On 30 March, we sent the following response to the submitter: > > Thank you for your suggestion numbered 2016.04 - Waiting List for 2 Byte > ASNs. > > Background > > The NRPM included instructions in the past for ARIN staff to remove any > distinction between 2-byte and 4-byte in the issuance of AS numbers. > This particular policy language has since been retired in the NRPM. > > Staff has followed policy regarding issuance of AS numbers, but has > often had lower numbered, classic 2-byte, AS numbers available over > time. We would either receive them in our new delegations from the IANA, > obtain them from customer returns of AS numbers, or through revocations > of AS numbers due to non-payment of registration fees. Although ARIN > expects to no longer receive AS numbers from the IANA inside the classic > 2-byte range, we do expect to continue reclaiming them through returns > and revocations going forward. > > Some AS number requests today continue to specifically ask for an AS > number from the classic 2-byte range. In those situations we relay to > the customer that we have noted their special request and that we will > accommodate it at the issuance phase of the ticket process if one is > available at the time. > > The Suggestion > > We understand your suggestion is to establish a waiting list for AS > numbers from the classic 2-byte range for those customers who > specifically request one when ARIN does not have them available. This > waiting list would be similar to the IPv4 waiting list for unmet > requests, but managed separately for AS numbers. Organizations would be > placed on this AS number waiting list, and when one became available > through reclamation at ARIN, it would be slated for the organization > first on the waiting list. > > Staff Action > > ARIN staff can create a waiting list for 2-byte AS numbers if there is > favor from the community to establish one. ARIN staff will open a > consultation on the topic to gather feedback and take appropriate action > based on information received through that process. > > Thank you for participating in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion > Process. We will leave this suggestion open until a consultation has > been completed on this topic and an implementation plan has been > established. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > _______________________________________________ > arin-suggestions mailing list > arin-suggestions at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-suggestions > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From job at ntt.net Thu Mar 31 07:45:29 2016 From: job at ntt.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:45:29 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> Message-ID: <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:12:16PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Actually, the community thing is largely a red herring in lieu of > ?convenience?. > > There are perfectly valid ways to address the community functionality > desired using 4-byte ASNs. This is news to me. Can you back this claim up by providing references to both the appropiate standardization and the publically known deployment of such standards? Some of my own digging: If I look at NTT's BGP Community scheme at http://www.us.ntt.net/support/policy/routing.cfm#communities under the "Customers wanting to alter their route announcements to selected peers." section - you can easily conclude that 16-bit ASNs are first-class citizens, but 32-bit ASNs don't even fit the scheme. This pattern seems to be employed by other significant networks such as Level3 (http://onestep.net/communities/as3356/), GTT (http://onestep.net/communities/as3257/) or for example Comcast (http://onestep.net/communities/as7922/) I won't pass value judgement on the design of these schemes, they are what they are. I want to stipulate that in my opinion the "community thing" is not a "red herring", but that there is a tangible difference between 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs in today's BGP landscape. I think the waiting list idea is worth considering. Kind regards, Job From rs at seastrom.com Thu Mar 31 08:11:39 2016 From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert Seastrom) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:11:39 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <0CF3A3B3-920F-4BCD-98BD-B0DE6E2306FF@seastrom.com> > On Mar 31, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > I won't pass value judgement on the design of these schemes, they are > what they are. I want to stipulate that in my opinion the "community > thing" is not a "red herring", but that there is a tangible difference > between 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs in today's BGP landscape. There's also the business decision to stick with older hardware. There are plenty of reasons to not do this (software vulns, trading capex for opex in a way that's likely to annoy the @$#^@ out of one's technical staff being chief among them from my perspective). Being on a waiting list may be one more nail in that coffin. > I think the waiting list idea is worth considering. I think the idea of having a way to get a 16-bit ASN if the totality of one's business needs require one is worth considering. Indeed, we already have such a method: the introduction to the NRPM, Section 8.3 reads "In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources and ASNs may be transferred according to the following conditions...". I would be curious to hear from ARIN staff how many ASNs have been transfered under 8.3 to date. Our experience with the IPv4 number resource waiting list is that it has grown to the point where it is unlikely to deliver results for its members within a conceivable business planning cycle, while burdening ARIN with maintaining and fairly administering the list. What problem are we solving by establishing a similar waiting list for 16 bit ASNs rather than directing organizations who require one to the transfer market? Whether I'm in favor or opposed largely hinges on the answer to that question. cheers, -r From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 31 13:49:30 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:49:30 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <5218FE48-D98F-4E78-84BF-B029D25212FB@delong.com> Your argument amounts to the convenience of the networks in question in that they have not implemented (apparently) appropriate extended-community schemes to address clients with 32-bit ASNs. Owen > On Mar 31, 2016, at 04:45 , Job Snijders wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:12:16PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Actually, the community thing is largely a red herring in lieu of >> ?convenience?. >> >> There are perfectly valid ways to address the community functionality >> desired using 4-byte ASNs. > > This is news to me. Can you back this claim up by providing references > to both the appropiate standardization and the publically known > deployment of such standards? > > Some of my own digging: If I look at NTT's BGP Community scheme at > http://www.us.ntt.net/support/policy/routing.cfm#communities under the > "Customers wanting to alter their route announcements to selected > peers." section - you can easily conclude that 16-bit ASNs are > first-class citizens, but 32-bit ASNs don't even fit the scheme. This > pattern seems to be employed by other significant networks such as > Level3 (http://onestep.net/communities/as3356/), GTT > (http://onestep.net/communities/as3257/) or for example Comcast > (http://onestep.net/communities/as7922/) > > I won't pass value judgement on the design of these schemes, they are > what they are. I want to stipulate that in my opinion the "community > thing" is not a "red herring", but that there is a tangible difference > between 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs in today's BGP landscape. > > I think the waiting list idea is worth considering. > > Kind regards, > > Job From job at ntt.net Thu Mar 31 14:43:25 2016 From: job at ntt.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:43:25 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: <5218FE48-D98F-4E78-84BF-B029D25212FB@delong.com> References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> <5218FE48-D98F-4E78-84BF-B029D25212FB@delong.com> Message-ID: <20160331184325.GF901@22.rev.meerval.net> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:49:30AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Your argument amounts to the convenience of the networks in question > in that they have not implemented (apparently) appropriate > extended-community schemes to address clients with 32-bit ASNs. Can you recommend a specific Extended Community Type and Subtype for this purpose? Or maybe point me at a standard that defines something akin to "32bit:32bit"-style (64 bits in total), much like how many networks use "16bit:16bit" as I described? It would also be helpful if you can point me at publicly-known deployments of such schemes based on Extended Communities. Alternatively, we can accept that "the community thing" is not a red herring. Acknowledging the tangible difference between 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs should help the discussion at hand. Kind regards, Job From owen at delong.com Thu Mar 31 15:36:03 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:36:03 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: <20160331184325.GF901@22.rev.meerval.net> References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> <5218FE48-D98F-4E78-84BF-B029D25212FB@delong.com> <20160331184325.GF901@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: You don?t actually need 32:32. You really only need 32:16 since what is really needed is ASN:action rather than ASN:ASN. There are plenty of possible ways to address 32:16 described in RFC4360 and several that I can think of relatively easily if one goes beyond 4360 and defines an additional extended community type. Extended communities are 64 bit attributes which reserve 16 bits for describing the contents of the remaining 48 bits. It is, in fact, possible to define a type where only 8 bits are used to describe the contents of the remaining 56 bits. So, until we get into the past 16.7 million of the 32-bit ASNs, you could, actually, have the equivalent functionality of 32:32 using an 8 bit type to indicate that the remaining bits contain two 32-bit where the first 8 bits of the first ASN are assumed to be 0. Owen > On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:43 , Job Snijders wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:49:30AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Your argument amounts to the convenience of the networks in question >> in that they have not implemented (apparently) appropriate >> extended-community schemes to address clients with 32-bit ASNs. > > Can you recommend a specific Extended Community Type and Subtype for > this purpose? Or maybe point me at a standard that defines something > akin to "32bit:32bit"-style (64 bits in total), much like how many > networks use "16bit:16bit" as I described? > > It would also be helpful if you can point me at publicly-known > deployments of such schemes based on Extended Communities. > > Alternatively, we can accept that "the community thing" is not a red > herring. Acknowledging the tangible difference between 16-bit and 32-bit > ASNs should help the discussion at hand. > > Kind regards, > > Job From gert at space.net Thu Mar 31 15:47:26 2016 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:47:26 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New Suggestion - ACSP 2016.4 - Waiting List for 2 Byte ASNs In-Reply-To: References: <56FC3708.1090103@arin.net> <180AD551-F4D1-4168-928B-86B7710A3194@delong.com> <20160331114529.GE901@22.rev.meerval.net> <5218FE48-D98F-4E78-84BF-B029D25212FB@delong.com> <20160331184325.GF901@22.rev.meerval.net> Message-ID: <20160331194726.GX85490@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:36:03PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > So, until we get into the past 16.7 million of the 32-bit ASNs, you could, actually, have the > equivalent functionality of 32:32 using an 8 bit type to indicate that the remaining bits > contain two 32-bit where the first 8 bits of the first ASN are assumed to be 0. Can I configure this on my routers today? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279