[ppml] Draft 1 of possible proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[william at elan.net]

As both publicly and privately I have received positive reaction to 
idea posted last week on small ip block allocations with sponsorship by 
the isps, I'v put this into draft for a proposal. Please feel free to 
comment on idea, alternatives listed and any wording that is seriously 
wrong and anything that is missing or is too much (I tried my best not to 
overload, but I do tend to write long emails as well as other documents).
Those of you who have better skill at writing, please fee free to post 
your own alternative wording if it sounds better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under this policy proposal, a company or individual may become ARIN client 
and receive IP allocation from ARIN without becoming ARIN member if it has 
a sponsorship of two or more ARIN subscriber members.

<comment alternative=1 paragraph=1 descr="associate member alternative">
Under this policy a company or individual may become ARIN associate 
subscriber member and receive IP allocation from ARIN if it has 
sponsorship of two or more ARIN ISP subsriber members.
</comment alternative>

A company or individual may not directly contact ARIN to request ip 
allocation under this policy, instead contact first needs to be made with 
companies that will act as sponsors and after these companies have 
verified technical details of the request, one of the future sponsors may 
submit the request futher to ARIN.

<comment alternative=1 paragraph=2 descr="direct ARIN contact alternative">
A company or individual must first provide technical information regarding 
each ip request under this policy to the companies that will act as its 
sponsors. Only after approval is received from two or more such companies 
can the contact with ARIN be initiated.
</comment alternative>

ARIN members that agree to act as sponsors for the ip request under this 
policy must have business relationship with the company or individual 
requesting ip allocation. If in the future this relationship is terminated,
the sponsor agrees to notify ARIN no longer then 30 days after such an 
event that it will not continue to be a sponsor.

An entity that has received ip block according to this policy may change 
one or more of its sponsors at any time, it must then send information 
regarding its new sponsor to ARIN and ARIN must verify such request 
with listed subscriber member.

If entity that has received ip block has less then two sponsors for 
period longer then one month, ARIN may withdraw its ip block assignment 
provided 30-day notice has been issued to the last known mailing address.

In the event that a sponsor becomes aware that any information regarding 
ip request received under this policy is no longer valid, a sponsor must 
notify ARIN or verify that sponsored organization or individual has 
already made necessary updates.

<comment paragraph=6 descr="on ISPs keeping ARIN up to date">
Above is meant to encorage ISPs/sponsors to keep updated information on 
its clients and if anything changes, let them know that they need to 
contact ARIN or otherwise, the ISP would have to notify ARIN anyway 
because of its sponsorship obligations. Changes meant to include company 
name <note> some way must be provided for company to keep its ip 
block if its name is changed by legal means </note> , its physical address, 
email address as well as technical information regarding ip blocks (to 
discourag those who no longer need larger ip blocks from keeping all of it).
</comment>

There is no minimum or maximum ip block size for allocation that company 
may receive under this policy but any ip allocations made must be 
according with guidelines listed in RFC2050, except where other ARIN 
policies may take precedence.

<comment paragraph=7 descr="on RFC2050 and use of other ip allocation policies">
The above rather short statement is put here instead of making long paragraph 
describing what what would be the minimum set of requirements to receive 
an ip block request, generally it is excepted that company would receive 
no more then 50% larger block that its currently needs no less then what 
is necessary for proper internet routing. Besides that the above also 
allows ARIN to have policies that would otherwise override the guidelines, 
for example allowing minimum allocation of /24 for multihomed customers

Perhaps what I have put is too short for what it is meant to be, in this 
case, feel free to provide your own alternatives, but please try not to 
unecessarily overload the policy text.
</comment>

An entity that has received ip block according to this policy may not at 
the same time have another ip block according to this or some other 
policy for period longer then 6 months except where special arrangements 
have been made with ARIN.

<comment alternative=1 paragraph=8 descr="descriptive on renumbering">
If in the future entity that has received an ip block according to this 
policy makes a request for additional ip block, it may receive a larger 
<note> shouldn't this be smaller, i.e. ip block prefix size? </note> 
ip block as a replacement for the existing block and according to 
additional requirements in its new request. In this case a period
of up to 6 months must be provided by ARIN when both assignments are valid 
in order to allow for renumbering and after that ARIN may withdraw its 
initial allocation.
</comment alternative>

<comment alternative=2 paragraph=8 descr="two small ip block are allowed">
A company or individual may not have more then two ip blocks assigned 
according to this policy for period longer then 6 months, except where 
special arrangements have been made with ARIN.
</comment alternative>

An entity that has received an ip block is responsible for making regular 
yearly maintanence fee payments according to special maintance schedule to 
be adapted by ARIN board of trustees. ARIN must provide an renewal invoice 
to last known mailing address by the yearly renewal date and if payment is 
not received up to 30 days after the due date, it must contact sponsors to 
verify the correct address. In the event that ARIN is unable to make 
proper contact with the entity or when payment is still not received 
90 days after the due date, ARIN may withdraw ip block assignment and must 
then notify all existing sponsors of such an event.

<comment paragraph=9 descr="on sponsors responsibility on notifications"> 
The above paragraph and actually all other paragraphs regarding sponsors, 
places no particular "punishment" for arin members for failure to keep its 
sponsoring obligations (i.e. notify ARIN in time when its no longer a 
sponsor and keep arin otherwise informed about any changes to sponsored 
company). Perhaps stronger wording is needed or otherwise ARIN may want to 
have sponsors sign special agreement as well <note> legal document for 
sponsorship may very well be needed anyway </note>. One alternative is also 
to have sponsors financially liable for money owed to ARIN if it failed to 
notify arin and arin finds that company is no longer in business when it 
does not get paid.
<comment>

<comment alternative=1 paragraph=10 descr="fee schedule">
Before this policy can be used ARIN board of trustees must approve special 
payment schedule to be used for companies and individuals requesting ip 
space under this policy. The followingis the recommended schedule for the 
initial period after the adaption of the policy:
/24 or less: $500
/23: $750
/22: $1,000
/21: $1,500
/20: $2,000
/19: $2,500 
/18: $5,000 
/17: $7,500 
/16 and larger: $10K per /16
It is also recommended that one-time registration fee be charged that is 
equivalent to yearly maintaince fee for the block.
</comment alternative>

<comment descr="problem finding sponsor if upstream is foreign ISP">
There maybe companies that receive ip transit in US from ISPs not based in 
US that are not members of ARIN. It may very well be beneficial for such 
companies to receive an ip block directly from ARIN according to above 
policy, but it would not be possible because one or more of its upstream 
providers is not arin member and can not act as sponsor. I do not see any 
easy way to incorporate this situation into above proposal without 
overloading it or otherwise creating a loophole. Any suggestions on what 
to do in such case and/or how to modify the above proposal are greatly 
appreciated.
</comment>

<comment descr="on ISP and withdrawl of sponsorship">
There mabe some cases where ISP wants to withdraw its sponsorship because 
it changed its policies and no longer wants to do sponsorships. The above 
makes it impossible as in order to withdraw sponsorship, it must end 
"business relationship" but this may not be the case. Perhaps more clear 
wording that ISP may withdraw sponsorship at any time is needed but this 
may lead to above (i.e. isp threatening to withdraw sponsorship during
contract negogiations, etc).

In general there may need to be some "arbitration comitee" for issues 
regarding sponsorship.
</comment>

<comment descr="on allocations and assignments">
I often use assignment and allocations in place of one another in the 
above. You can safely assume general "assignment or allocation" is meant, 
I personally do not like to make a distinction between one and another and 
don't see why should ARIN care if ip block is sub-allocated to companie's 
customers or used on its own entire by the same company. However to be 
move precise in most cases, the proposal is meant to replace current 
problem with small "assignments" and to supplement ARIN's current policies 
on minimum assignment to end users.

The wording and using either just "assignment" or "assignment or allocation"
or some other more general term would be fixed for final draft.
</comment>