[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[Owen DeLong]

Although I think this facilitates abuse by the ISPs, I think it's a better
compromise than what is currently proposed.  There should, however, be
some form of process included for redress of abuse by ISP so that people
trying to get sponsored have some recourse if their ISP won't sponsor
them other than finding another ISP.

Owen


--On Friday, February 14, 2003 12:08 PM -0800 william at elan.net wrote:

> What do you think about doing this different then what is in 2002-7 and
> instead of lowering minimimum allocation/assignment and having company
> become new full member, doing this with special policy and special
> associate membership. We can do it so that to get this membership company
> would need to have two ARIN full members sponsor it (i.e. its two
> upstreams) and would not be able to go directly to ARIN but would need to
> have one of sponsors come to ARIN and request this ip block on their
> behalf. This has the following advantages over current proposal:
>   1. ARIN is not put in the position of having to verify multihoming,
>   having two sponsors makes sure of that.
>   2. Presumably existing arin members would filter out some companies
> that    really do not need this separate ip block and make sure and make
> sure    that some technical requirements exist for the assignment.
>   3. It is still possible for company that got this associative
> membership    to move to another isp and keep the ip block, but they
> would need to    make sure their new isp is willing to sponsor them.
>   4. ARIN has records on who sponsors are and in case of billing problems
>   or if it receives reports that address or some other whois info is not
>   kept up to date, it can ask for assistance of their sponsors to get in
>   touch with right people.
>
> I do realize this would be kind of compromise and it would not be as easy
> to get small ip block as some would like but on the other hand I believe
> some of the current proponents (like large ISPs who are worried about
> loosing control of ip assignments) may support this and it might be
> good as compromise between different positions.
>
> Please comment on above and if you think this is a good idea, I'll write
> up official proposal.
>
> ----
> William Leibzon
> Elan Communications
> william at elan.net
>