[ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP and changes toIPv6 initial allocation criteria
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Wed Aug 22 17:40:29 EDT 2007
"known" is my only issue with the rewording.
I believe know and existing are the same thing to a substantial number
of entities and if that is the case, then it should be demonstrable and
thus the case for ARIN.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:20 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP
> and changes toIPv6 initial allocation criteria
> In a message written on Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:51:27PM
> -0400, Member Services wrote:
> > Replace 18.104.22.168 (d) with the following text:
> > d. be an existing ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
> > making assignments to at least 200 separate organizations
> > within five years.
> In my IPv6 Policy Housekeeping proposal, recently sent to
> PPML I proposed similar language, which was discovered today
> during AC review of the various proposals. Here's the
> language from the other proposal:
> ] Change I:
> ] In section 22.214.171.124.d, replace the existing statement with the new
> ] statement:
> ] "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or
> have a plan for
> ] making at least 200 end-site assignments to other
> ] within 5 years."
> Were both proposals to pass, are these substantially similar
> enough that the AC could use either one to serve the purpose?
> 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML