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

[James Hess]

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Chris Grundemann
<cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:30, Aaron Wendel <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
> You believe that all residential customers should be listed in WHOIS?

Residential  customers do not have to be identified by name or address
in WHOIS  under current policy. So the proposal is neutral in regards
to that.. By my reading of it,  proposal 109 requires more
information, not less, to be recorded in an assignment.

We don't need to add re-assignment form standardization to the NRPM,
because  this can be done most effectively by ARIN staff;  it makes
the number policy more complicated, and does not appear to confer a
benefit.    The re-assigning ISP and ARIN  should exercise discretion
in regards to the contents of re-assignment records.    The  NRPM
doesn't need to standardize this, any more than it needs to
standardize  what specific documents a new organization needs to fax
in to _prove_ to ARIN that they really exist, or the fee levels.


Believe Sec 3.2  is sufficient
"3.2. Distributed Information Server Use Requirements
...
The minimal requirements for an organization to setup a distributed
information service to advertise reassignment information are:
The distributed information service must respond to a query with the
minimal set of attributes per object as defined by ARIN staff."




Also, in regards to the following:   merging and revising the "Cable
Address Space" policy  into a  "Residential Market Area"  policy,  is
a potential can of worms.

 "Initial  allocations are based on total number of homes that could
purchase the
service in a given market area. Each assignment to specific end-users
of /29 and larger blocks still requires individual registration."

Problem with this wording:  _every_  home  in a given market area
COULD purchase  certain services,  such as  dial-up  networking or VPN
services for residential users, even in cases where 15% or fewer
actually will.     Then in those cases, the initial allocation would
have been based on the higher fictional quantity,   the number "that
could" buy service in that market.

Cable networks that involve IP addressing for residential customers
are normally local monopolies,  and have well-defined  market areas.

So basing initial allocation on  potential market size  is  not wasteful.
But for  other types of services it could be wasteful.

Perhaps it's just a wording issue...

--
-J