[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Christoph Blecker <cblecker at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is just more re-arrangement of the deck chairs, but this one isn't
>> going to go away regardless of a lack of support. It already had that.
>>
>> It would probably be more workable if it were written as such:
>>
>> "Any organization requesting ARIN issued number resources or ASN's must
>> provide ARIN with evidence of a legally established presence in the ARIN
>> region. "
>>
>> And this is already the case.
>>
>> The use case for "majority" doesn't work. 2 of 3 is a majority. They're
>> really looking for "substantial presence" more than majority if its truly
>> an effort to weed out their definition of bad actors. There should be a
>> real concern with false positives with the proposed language. And yes, the
>> train left the station a decade ago re: use.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>
[ clip ]



>
> "Any organization requesting ARIN issued number resources must provide
> ARIN with evidence of a legally established presence in the ARIN service
> region."
>
> John/ARIN: Based on that above line, would this create any deviation from
> current practice? Is this evidence already required? What level of proof
> would you accept? (Business Licence, Utility Bill, etc)
>


Staff has stated at the mic and in other forums that ARIN does in fact
check people out prior to initial allocations. Whether that is a strong or
weak process I do not know. But I doubt they need a policy to do account
and billing verifications as my understanding of this, much like fees, is
that this issue is out of the purview of "policy".


Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130626/d59d079e/attachment.htm>