[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 andIPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised Problem Statementand Policy Text

Mon Sep 16 20:38:44 EDT 2013

Steve, I believe this policy would focus on the 'next' allocation...the one
currently being requested from ARIN.  A plurality for that one.
bd

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
> wrote:

> The problem here of course is there could be a legitimate international
> organization with over 50% of their network say in Asia and only say 2% in
> the US.  As long as the resources are going to be used in the ARIN region
> it is reasonable that they should be allocated resources from ARIN.  So
> majority or plurality doesn't work and there will always be a scenario that
> is legitimate but that doesn't fit into a contrived policy.
>
> I don't believe ARIN can NOT allocate resources solely because more than
> 50% of existing resources reside in other regions.  This is an example of
> trying to use policy to NOT allocate resources and of course ARIN's mission
> is TO allocate resources.  The best that could be done by policy is to
> require they use them within the ARIN region.  I'm not sure if ARIN really
> wants to get into the policing business after resources have been
> allocated, but that is the only recourse if an org lies in their allocation
> request.
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:07 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4
> andIPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised Problem
> Statementand Policy Text
>
> On 9/15/13 13:18 , William Herrin wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:53 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >>> The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN
> >>> addresses in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule
> >>> doesn't do that. It does, however, create a new and potentially
> >>> onerous documentary burden on every registrant requesting addresses.
> >>
> >> With all due respect, if that's the intent, then I oppose the policy.
> >
> > Hi Owen,
> >
> > My paragraph above is in error. Terri clarified the intent of the
> > draft several messages ago.
> >
> > Paraphrasing: the authors want better public records so they know who
> > to go to or go after when there is a law enforcement issue. And they'd
> > like that to be someone within their respective jurisdictions. They
> > would have us tighten eligibility to those folks with some kind of
> > substantive legal presence in the region. Something more than "We've
> > registered a Delaware LLC and park IP addresses on rented equipment in
> > a rented data center."
> >
> > Based on her clarification, I'd drop the language which seeks to have
> > the number resources employed in-region. That muddies the issue and
> > makes consensus harder than it needs to be. The issue is not where the
> > IP addresses are used, but whether the registrant can be compelled to
> > cooperate with local law enforcement and adhere to local law.
>
> The intent of requiring a plurality or a minimum percentage is not to keep
> resources within the region, but along with the other requirements of a
> legal presence and operating a network in region, the intent is to ensure
> all organizations receiving resources from ARIN actually have a real
> presence within the ARIN region, be that a network with a footprint wholly
> contained within the region, a network with a global footprint based in the
> ARIN region, or the in-region need of a global network, based any where.
>  Requiring a minimum percentage of resource be justified from within the
> region adds another level of assurance that an organization has such a real
> presence within the ARIN region.
>
> Without some minimum for justification within the ARIN region it would be
> theoretically possible for an organization to have a legal presence and
> operational network within region, and get resources from ARIN and use
> 0.001% within the region 99.999% outside the region, that just doesn't pass
> a smell test for me.  That sounds more like they are operating a network
> with a global footprint that is really based out of another region, than
> based in the ARIN region.
>
> I think we want to allow organizations with a global network based in the
> region to get resources from ARIN if they wish.  Some organizations may
> want to get resources from other RIRs, or all 5.  Others organizations may
> find it easier to get resources from some other RIRs (those near the
> minimum), and a few may need to by policy (those with less than the
> minimum).  But, the vast majority of organizations shouldn't have to get
> resources from other RIRs unless they want to.
>
> >>> More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have
> >>> to keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE
> >>> region and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have
> >>> 30% in the APNIC region in which case I need 31% in the ARIN region,
> >>> but if that drops the RIPE region down to 27% I can reduce the ARIN
> >>> region holdings to 28%.
> >>
> >> I suppose you can make it sound complex like that, but, in reality,
> >> it's much simpler… You need to make sure that more of your operations
> >> using ARIN space are in the ARIN region than anywhere else.
>
> As I said in my response to Matt, I think we could simplify things by
> going with a minimum percentage rather than a plurality.  But I agree with
> Owen a plurality really isn't that complicated.  A minimum percentage would
> probably water down the requirement more that some people want.  But if we
> can find consensus around a simple percentage then lets use that.  I'm
> suggesting 20%, 25% or 30%, but I'd like to know what others think.
>
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952================================================
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130916/69288754/attachment.htm>