[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements - Revised

[Chris Grundemann]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 15:46, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:07:00 -0600
>> To: arin ppml <ppml at arin.net>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment
>> Registration Requirements - Revised
>>
>> With the renewed conversations regarding draft policy 2010-3 I thought
>> it may be appropriate to remind everyone of the proposal that I wrote
>> in response to earlier debate surrounding this issue: policy proposal
>> 109.
>>
>
> Honestly? I don't think that it's helpful at all and I mean that in a
> "helpful" way. :-) We lose focus _a lot_ on the proposals at hand, both on
> the list and through other "mechanisms". That has happened with this
> proposal. I think that the spate of recent comments has helped to regain
> that focus; this proposal is not truly addressing what it was intended to.

Point taken. I do not wish to muddy the water. I still think that
understanding the currently offered policy options and seeing another
take on the issue may be helpful to some.

> For that matter, I think that the ARIN should not get dragged into this
> scrum and let competition be competition. Whois is inaccurate, you can
> accomplish exactly the same thing using other, similarly easy, cheap and
> perhaps even more accurate, means

To dissect this a bit:
1) "Whois is inaccurate" - Agreed but with hopes that we can (even if
slowly) fix that.
2) "you can accomplish the same thing..." - Do you mean gathering
customer lists or gathering abuse and technical POCs? I agree with the
former but not as much the latter. Whois with all it's flaws is still
the best first choice for making those contacts.

> Also, who will reach ARIN in an exigent circumstance, at 0500, on Sunday
> morning to ask them to ask someone else for something that we should be able
> to ask for related to internet security, personal safety or other valid
> reason? I don't think that we should have to pay for that or any other
> "service" to provide competition protection.

My policy intends to avoid this. I agree that 2010-3 could very well
cause this problem.

> To be clear; not in favor.

Fair enough, but based on your last paragraph I have a suspicion that
you may misunderstand this proposal (or I may just misunderstand you
;)).

Cheers,
~Chris

> Best Regards,
>
> -M<
>
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org