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

[David Farmer]

I'm going to break this up into separate sub threads.

On 9/17/13 10:20 , Matthew Petach wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:
...
>         change
>
>         " a plurality of resources requested from ARIN must be justified by technical
>         infrastructure and customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located
>         outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."
>
>         to
>
>         " a significant fraction of the resources requested from ARIN
>         must be justified by technical infrastructure or customers located
>         within the ARIN service region, and any located outside the region must be
>         interconnected to the ARIN service region."
>
>
>     If we don't like plurality for whatever reason, I'd suggest;
>
>     "a minimum of X% of the resources requested from ARIN must be
>     justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within
>     the ARIN service region, and any located outside the region must be
>     interconnected to the ARIN service region."
>
>     Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%.
>
>
> So, how about something like this, then?
>
> "a minimum of 20% of the *new* resources requested from ARIN must be
> justified by technical infrastructure or customers physically located within
> the borders of ARIN member countries, and any technical infrastructure
> or customers located outside the ARIN region must be physically
> interconnected to the ARIN service region"

I will modify the current language adding "new" making it "a plurality 
of new resources requested" before the text freeze, I think that 
clarifies the current intent.  Are there any objections to the "new 
resources requested" language?

However, I'd like to hear more comments in support of a flat 20% 
standard before I'm willing to make that change, as I think that 
significantly changes the intent, at least in the view of some.  As an 
Individual I'd support a flat 20% standard.  But as the primary shepherd 
for the proposal, I'm a little worried we would loose as much or more 
support than we would gain with that change.  So, I need a better read 
on what the community as a whole thinks of a flat 20% standard before 
making that change.  No matter what, I will include that in the 
questions I take to the floor of the PPM.

As for some of the other additions I'm not sure "physically located 
within the borders of ARIN member countries" add much verses "located 
within the ARIN service region", or "physically interconnected" vs. 
"interconnected".  In your opinion what do these changes add?

Thanks

-- 
================================================
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
================================================