ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting

Kim Hubbard kimh at
Thu Aug 31 10:15:40 EDT 2000

---- Original Message -----
From: <jlewis at>
To: Richard Jimmerson <richardj at>
Cc: <ppml at>; <nanog at>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting

> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
> > Please keep in mind this policy is a result of discussions
> > held at the ARIN public policy meeting in Calgary earlier
> > this year.
> So who actually goes to these things, and was the new policy a later
> result of discussions at the meeting, or was there actually some sort of
> vote at the meeting?  i.e. was the policy decision made by one of the ARIN
> boards or by the ARIN members?  Since ARIN subscription customers are, by
> default, ARIN members, will we be given the opportunity to vote or at
> least express an opinion on such issues via proxy in the future, or do we
> have to send a representative in order for our voice to be heard?

The proposal was posted to the ARIN discuss list prior to the last meeting
but since then we have formalized the process a bit more to include a couple
of weeks of discussion on the ppml mailing list of all proposed policy
changes which attendees of  the public policy meeting reached consensus on.
This will allow everyone who didn't make it to the meeting to voice their
opinion on the proposal before the AC votes.
> > The policy does state ARIN will accept IP-based hosting
> > as justification for an allocation if an exception is
> > warranted. ARIN is looking to the community to define
> > these exceptions and finds the discussions being held
> > here to be very helpful. This information will be included
> Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules?  Nobody
> knows what constitutes a valid exception.  Apparently, even ARIN doesn't
> know yet.  If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who would
> decide if the thousands of IPs that we and our customers have used for IP
> based virtual hosts are a valid or wasteful use of IPs?..the individual at
> ARIN processing our request?

We thought it best not to include specific exceptions because although we
were aware of several possible exceptions, we didn't want people to feel
restricted to just those listed.  There could've been some we didn't know
about and we wanted to wait until we heard from some of the requesting
organizations so we could come up with a more comprehensive list of
> > These discussions may create changes to the current
> > policy, perhaps by clearly defining a list of exceptions,
> > or may even eliminate the new policy altogether. Your
> > feedback on this mailing list and at the upcoming public
> > policy meeting is important.
> So a policy was announced before it was fully fleshed out.  It may get
> fleshed...or it may get flushed.  What was the point?  Are you just trying
> to rattle the cages of every ISP in NA to see how many reactions you can
> get?

No, our motivation, as stated above, was to try to give more organizations
the benefit of the doubt.  But I definitely see how you could have
interpreted it differently.  We should've been clearer with the policy so
allow me to apoligize to all of you for this.

Kim Hubbard
ex-ARIN President :-)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis *jlewis at*|  I route
>  System Administrator        |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ for PGP public key_________

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list