[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition for Proposal 109 - Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  109. Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements
>>
>> Regarding Proposal 109, the AC would really like to see the sentiments
>> in this proposal re-surface in bite-size pieces. SWIP requirements, both
>> IPv4 and IPv6, the distinction of residential customers, the utilization
>> requirements for subsequent allocations, and customer privacy are all
>> good topics, but agreement in some will be held up by any disagreements
>> on the others when trying to address them as one.
>
> Although I understand the sentiments of the AC, I am petitioning this
> proposal as I feel strongly that it meets the basic requirements for
> ARIN Policy and meets the immediate needs of the community. This
> proposal was previously discussed at the open policy hour in Toronto
> and I believe that the best next step is for the final (v4) text to be
> discussed as a draft policy in Atlanta. If the petition is successful
> I will continue to work with the AC in preparation for presenting it
> at the PPM in Atlanta.

Hi Chris,

As much as I favor moving proposals to the full community, I agree
with the AC's assessment. At the very least it should come back as
separate v4 and v6 proposals before moving forward.

Pushing heavy-handed documentation requirements on IPv6 doesn't seem
particularly timely to me. If anything, a little deliberate
inattention could help grease the deployment skids. I would not
support a proposal that placed additional documentation requirements
on the use of IPv6 right now.

On the other hand, I hold IPv4 reassignments from Sprint, Verizon,
Cox, Qwest and Twtelecom. Of the five, only TWTelecom has registered
all of my reassignments /28 and larger in whois. Too many of the
X-Larges aren't holding up their end of the bargain when it comes to
the privileges they've been granted as LIRs. Given the impending
shortage of IPv4 addresses, it makes good sense to me to shorten the
leash.

For these reasons, I OPPOSE the petition to move the proposal 109
forward as written. Split it up and if the AC still fails to act on
it, ask me again.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004