[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML : 2014-17

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Sat Dec 27 20:33:12 EST 2014


Re 2014-17....I support.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting
784 430 9235
On Dec 27, 2014 7:52 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re: What the
>       heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
>       CI Pool Size per Section 4.4) (John Curran)
>    2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization
>       Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate (Matthew Petach)
>    3. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Rob Seastrom)
>    4. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (William Herrin)
>    5. Re: What is Open-IX and why does it matter? (Milton L Mueller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:25:59 +0000
> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: Martin J Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was:
>         Re: What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21:
>         Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
> Message-ID: <3299736A-44FE-4D7F-8F2F-24C8EE622341 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:
> hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:
> jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:
> hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > ...
>
> [ snip ]
>
>     We?ve had this question arise in the past with other trade
> organizations,
>     and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to
> address
>     policy for individual sectors of ARIN?s region or individual
> technologies such
>     as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any
> recommendations
>     from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it
> is
>     also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN
> policy
>     development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.
>
> Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion
> to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a
> year.
>
> Perfectly understandable, and it is fair to suppose that much of the
> ongoing
> address policy development efforts may not be of direct interest to the OIX
> community.
>
> As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a written
> guidance on this supported by the Board?
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is adopted by the ARIN Board.
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>  The PDP contains the following
> provisions for input -
>
> "Policy discussions in the ARIN region are conducted on the Public Policy
> Mail List (PPML) and via Public Policy Consultation (PPC). There are no
> requirements for participation other than adherence to the guidelines of
> behavior and decorum, and anyone interested in following the process may
> subscribe to the PPML or may participate without charge in Public Policy
> Consultations via in person or remote participation methods.?
>
> It would be good to clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide
> input to "ARIN" on behalf of their members and if that will not be valid -
> in writing. It would likely help to make the case to consider participating
> in other ways where there is [currently] aversion.
>
> Trade associations can expression views via the PPML mailing list or the
> Public
> Policy Consultations (which take place at ARIN and NANOG meetings).  These
> views are considered on their merits, just as any other position posted to
> PPML
> or raised during the Public Policy consultation.
>
> In the majority of cases, a well-reasoned statement from a trade
> association is
> rather likely to influence the development of relevant address policy.  If
> this does
> not turn out to be the case, then I would again recommend that the
> individual trade
> association members take a moment to express their views on the PPML
> mailing
> list. I do recognize that such participation takes a modest level of
> effort, but it is a
> fair and reasonable request if that input is going to be used as the basis
> for policy.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/6441701b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:30:29 -0800
> From: Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com>
> To: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
>         Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
> Message-ID:
>         <CAEmG1=oxe5Ktqes9Lyh6ugbU-UE=
> rOCeS1fMQX6f-WoJc1_GoQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
> > Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
> >
> > On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> > ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
> >
> > ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html
> >
> > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to
> > the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio
> in
> > February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be
> > used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus
> for
> > adopting this as policy.
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ## * ##
> >
>
>
>
> OMG.
>
> An ARIN policy proposal that is simple, succinct,
> easy to understand and implement...I love it!
>
> I support this proposal.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/84458a03/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:03:28 -0500
> From: Rob Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com>
> To: andrew.dul at quark.net
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> Message-ID: <867fxdi18f.fsf at valhalla.seastrom.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> writes:
>
> > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.?
> > The fees and its categories are under the control of the board;
> > number policy is under control of the Internet community via the
> > PDP.? I believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not
> > cause changes with number policy.  Andrew
>
> +1
>
> -r
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:52:59 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP-guGWeX_WTqKpuTSB7rCszF6dbYXiL_UV4omF4oFfEiL6Ykw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  The
> fees
> > and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is
> > under control of the Internet community via the PDP.  I believe the
> board's
> > actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes with number policy.
>
> Agreed. Over the course of this discussion I've heard a number of
> preposterous arguments for why address blocks large enough to support
> tens of thousands of customers and employees should be deemed "small."
> The arguments have nothing to do with any rational definition of small
> and everything to do with the inadequate support for waiving the needs
> basis tests for anything "large."
>
> Folks, I want to see us move away from needs testing too, but you're
> shooting yourselves in the foot here. It looks to me like there's real
> support for allowing it in the /22 and /24 neighborhoods. Not a
> perfect consensus but something approaching it. And if history is a
> guide (I'm looking at the /24 minimum assignments) success with a
> cautious approach offers a 2 to 3 year path to throwing the gates wide
> open.
>
> You can argue for /16 and /18 until you're blue in the face and get
> nowhere, ever, but accepting /22 puts you on a timer until /16 becomes
> inevitable.
>
> Be smart.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:51:11 +0000
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>, John Curran
>         <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter?
> Message-ID: <dcb122dfeccf4b61ac3bafbd8e5442d4 at EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Martin
> As an AC member I would be very receptive to seeing forwarded emails from
> OIX (or other trade association lists) that directly comment on specific
> ARIN policies. I would certainly give them weight in determining community
> support. A formal statement from the leadership of such an association
> would of course be more powerful, but I think that a single OIX member
> acting as an informal liaison by forwarding emails would serve a very
> useful function.
>
> I understand perfectly why the majority of members of OIX or any other
> trade association would not want to join a highly specialized mailing list
> such as PPML. On the other hand, I am aware of the self-selection and
> narrowing process that can occur on these specialized lists. Therefore I
> think when people on the PPML bring to our attention relevant views from
> other communities it is extremely important and useful.
>
> --MM
>
>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 7:15 PM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re:
> What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
> CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:
> jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:
> hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > ...
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>     We've had this question arise in the past with other trade
> organizations,
>     and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to
> address
>     policy for individual sectors of ARIN's region or individual
> technologies such
>     as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any
> recommendations
>     from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it
> is
>     also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN
> policy
>     development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.
>
> Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion
> to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a
> year. As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a
> written guidance on this supported by the Board? It would be good to
> clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide input to "ARIN" on
> behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - in writing. It
> would likely help to make the case to consider participating in other ways
> where there is [currently] aversion.
> Best,
> -M<
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/37ff5b35/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 60
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/42aa538b/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list