[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without network service
owen at delong.com
Fri Apr 8 15:09:56 EDT 2011
On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:56 PM, ARIN wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without network service
>>> Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong
>>> Proposal Version: 1
>>> A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns address space
>>> exclusively to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs
>>> are Network Service Providers (ISPs or NSPs), whose customers may
>>> include end users and/or other ISPs/NSPs.
>> I am opposed to this policy proposal.
>> Pragmatically, this proposal fails to achieve the author's goal, and it is not reasonable to do so in the NRPM. The terminology "network services" is vague; I imagine that "network consulting services" and "network connectivity services" can both be interpreted as consistent with this policy proposal. However, more restrictive wording would disenfranchise network operators that offer unique or innovative services.
> I am also opposed to the policy as worded. If the intent is to require a physical circuit, then say that. If the intent is to require a routing relationship, then say that. Right now it "clarifies" the language from one set of multiple possible interpretations to another.
I would say that both of your interpretations are viable under the proposed language
and it is my intent that they both be considered valid. As such, I'm not sure where
you see unintended ambiguity.
> Once we get language that actually comes out and says exactly what is intended, I will weigh in with my opinion as to whether or not that is a good idea.
Please define where I have missed my intent so I can better clarify it.
More information about the ARIN-PPML