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

Christoph Blecker cblecker at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 16:28:10 EDT 2013


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<
>

As ASNs are number resources, listing both might be redundant. Otherwise I
would completely support that line..

"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)

Cheers,
Christoph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130625/1d152ae7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list