[arin-ppml] Out-of-region overreaction?

[John Curran]

On Oct 6, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:17 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
...
Staff has called out this issue several times in the past couple years, and the community has failed to provide any guidance via policy several times.

That's nice, but perhaps we don't want them to do anything even if they want to?

To be clear, the staff does not "want" to do anything, per se, with the present policy -
the Policy Implementation and Experience Report is meant to highlight aspects of
deployed policy that the community might not be aware of or may have challenges
in implementation; this allows policy changes to be considered if the current policy
behavior doesn't match the community expectations.

Of course, there is a preference for clearer policy, but as long as the community is
aware of (and can accept) the implications of the existing address policy then the
existing policy language is fine.  With the report, we are simply raising the awareness
of any implications that may not be obvious or may be a source of contention when
processing resources requests.

ARIN already has the power to do the right thing if they thing that there are nefarious activities happening and they can also validate subscribed information to their hearts content.

You are correct - ARIN has adequate provisions in the NRPM to investigate
issues of fraudulent requests, and that is not the case here; the resources
being requested from ARIN (for the servicing customers almost entirely out of
region) is within current policy, even if the result may not match expectations
of some in the community.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20131007/f62425e4/attachment.htm>