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

[Joe Morgan]

I oppose this proposal.

Joe Morgan
Joe's Datacenter, LLC
http://joesdatacenter.com


On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:57 PM, James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
Thank You,
Joe Morgan
Joe's Datacenter, LLC
http://joesdatacenter.com