[arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on PP-158

[Martin Hannigan]

PPML:

Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
additional suggestions welcome.


Continue or abandon?

Best,

Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
ARIN Advisory Council Member


Latest update to proposal:


>
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>>
>>  1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Multiple Discreet Networks Policy
>>  2. Proposal Originator
>>        1. name: Owen DeLong
>>        2. e-mail: owen at XX
>>        3. telephone: 408-XX
>>        4. organization: Hurricane Electric
>  3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>>  4. Date: 3 October, 2011
>>  5. Proposal type: modify
>>  6. Policy term: permanent
>>  7. Policy statement:
>>
>> Modify section 4.5 of the NRPM as follows:
>>
>> Replace 4.5.2 with: The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>
> Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy.
>> Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>
>> Move 4.5.2 a, b, and c into new 4.5.3.
>>
>> Renumber existing 4.5.3 et. seq. to accommodate new 4.5.3 (4.5.3->4.5.4, etc.).
>>
>
> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>
> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>
> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>
> 4.5.1 The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities.
> 4.5.2 The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
> 4.5.3 Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>  a. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
>  b. Geographic distance and diversity between networks,
>  c. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
> 4.5.4 The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
> 4.5.6 The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized.
> 4.5.7 The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account.
>
>>  8. Rationale:
>>
>> Recent discussions on the PPML have shown that while ARIN is correctly applying the policy as intended,
>> there are those which interpret the existing wording differently.
>>
>> This proposal seeks to clarify the meaning in line with the current and intended application of the policy.
>>
>>  9. Timetable for implementation:
>>
>> Immediate
>>
>> END OF TEMPLATE