[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned

[Azinger, Marla]

Owen- just FYI your certification method is setting my email alarm of
and shows your email not trustworthy.  I don't know if I'm the only one
getting that warning about your email or not....

As for this string of emails.  Clearly there are opposing points of
view.  There always will be.  That is a good thing.  However, I feel
dizzy at this point from going in conversation circles, so I am going to
bow out from commenting anymore on this one for a while.  

One last clarification I would like to make due to your comment stating
that "there must be more opposition on the AC to this than in the
community".  That is an assumption.  The AC votes on community
consensus.  We did not see this proposal had consensus.  Nor did we see
a way to re-write it.  That said, if someone has a great idea that
manages to find a balance then that is what a new proposal would be good
for.

Cheers!
Marla



-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:12 PM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: David Williamson; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned


> Yes, I believe this would lead to a run on IPv4 space
	Please provide any documentation you can to support this belief.
	Certainly, the equivalant policy in EVERY other RIR has not
created  
this problems in
		any other region, so, I'd like to see any data you have
that  
supports this belief.

> Yes, I believe network providers and ISP's can cut off and clean up  
> IP space used by spammers faster than ARIN ( and I think that is  
> important).
	Network providers can clean it up by de-routing it and adding it
to  
the bogon filters
		etc.  This can be done whether the space is a direct
assignment  
from ARIN or
		provider-assigned.

> Yes, I believe it is MUCH easier to fudge justification for a /24  
> than a /22 and set yourself up for hording IP addresses and  
> possibly using them on black-market in the future.
	Again, data to support this belief would be good.  I'm pretty  
familiar with what it
		takes to justify a /22, and, I think it's pretty trivial
if you're  
willing to commit
		fraud either way.
>
> So again (sorry) I still don't support the proposal that no  
> consensus was found for or one that like it in the near future.
	Yep... I expected that.  I'm also pretty sure that the vote in
the  
room was much
		closer than the vote in the AC meeting.  I believe there
is more  
opposition
		to this policy on the AC than in the community.

Now, as to your other comments:

Yes, in terms of ARIN participation, this policy is championed by a  
small (but growing)
group of people active in ARIN.  One of the reasons for that is that  
the majority of
organizations that would benefit from this policy are not present for  
ARIN public
policy meetings.  For them, the network is a tool and not their core  
business. As
such, it's kind of hard to justify the time, travel budget, etc.   
Most of them depend on
outsource companies and people like me to do that for them.

While there's no provision for this fact in the public policy  
process, I was actually
representing no less than 5 organizations with ARIN resources all of  
who would
like to see this policy implemented.

In addition, I have at least 10 clients who would benefit from this  
policy because
it would allow them to multihome without taking additional routing  
slots and without
business risk of abrupt renumbering being required when their  
provider goes
out of business.  These concerns are sufficiently important to at  
least half of them
that they affect their SoX compliance.

Hopefully that places the need in some perspective.

Owen