[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Limit Scope of Anonymous Allocations

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:13:48AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> However, just because we can't solve the type 1 case does not mean, in my
> opinion, that we should NOT solve the type 2 case.

I disagree.  If we can't solve the problem, then increasing the
burden on a particular subset of users (in this case ISP's and users
who get static assignments) is a bad thing to do.  I don't think
they need to be solved in the same policy proposal, but we either
need to close all the doors at roughly the same time, or close none
at all.  Otherwise we are just discriminating against a subset of
people.

You asked if I had problems with the policy as written:

In a message written on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:15:19PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 1.	Said provider must agree to address abuse complaints about
> 	any blocks which are assigned under that policy promptly.

If we're going to impose this criteria, it should be applied to all
blocks (eg true of every assignment, allocation, and swip), and as
such could be a stand alone policy.

That said, I don't think ARIN should get involved in the abuse issue
at all.  As soon as "address abuse" appears in a policy ARIN must
now define what is abuse, and what is an appropriate measure to
address the abuse issues.  Spam is not the only thing (some) people
consider abuse.  Everyone differs on what is an appropriate response.

At the very minimum, if a policy is going to address the abuse issue
a very detailed definition of abuse needs to be included, else it will
be left to the ARIN staff to decide what is abuse, and that would be
a very bad thing in my opinion.

> 2.	No provider shall assign a block larger than a /27 under the
> 	privacy provisions of the policy.

I have no idea why we would arbitrarily limit the size of a residential
assignment.  I have no idea what you, or anyone else does at home.
Maybe you need a /24, and I see no issue with that if you can follow
normal justification guidelines.

> 3.	No customer of a given provider shall be given more than one
> 	assignment under the policy, except, for a period of time not
> 	exceeding 90 days for the purpose of renumbering into a larger
> 	or smaller allocation (overlap for renumbering).

Using the word customer here is a bad idea.  If I have a summer
house and a winter house in two different states, but served by the
same ISP I can't get an assignment for each under the privacy policy?
I am after all one customer.  The rich and famous are quite likely
to want the privacy, and quite likely to want service at more than
one residence.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20031119/fb757e25/attachment.sig>