[arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks

CJ Aronson cja at daydream.com
Mon Jun 30 22:31:59 EDT 2014


Here is the link to the transcript from NANOG 60 PPC (the one before last)


Here you said your main objection was the policy requiring a contract and
we took that away.

At the PPC in Washington (NANOG 61) there wasn't one single comment
positive or negative from the audience.

I fail to see from the transcript from NANOG 60 what your objections are at
this time since we changed the text and removed what you said concerned
you.  I went back and reread it to make sure I remembered exactly what you
had said.

Although I have tried for many years I am unable to read minds.  Please
tell us what is a problem at this point.   If anyone else can tell us that
would be great too.


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Scott,
> There have been more objections than mine all along the route. We pay
> ARIN millions in fees. We simply ask that ARIN do what we believe is best.
> Assuming that this is simply about my opinion demonstrates ARINs
> usual arrogance.
> Best,
> -M<
> On Monday, June 30, 2014, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was in the room as well.  I heard your objections in Chicago (
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_33/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_11)
>> "to the contract issue".  Since then, ARIN-2013-8 has been revised to
>> address your concern, and in fact no longer requires any contracts for
>> connectivity, but simply "evidence of deployment of the new discrete
>> network site".
>> Since that revision, ARIN-2013-8 was also discussed at the ARIN PPC and
>> NANOG 61 in Bellevue.  I don't recall or see (
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ppc_nanog61/ppc_transcript.html#anchor_3)
>> that you (or anyone else) raised any concerns at that meeting.
>> I believe the main objection you expressed at the ARIN 33 meeting has
>> been addressed.  If you have another objection, or you feel it hasn't been
>> addressed, please provide some additional details.  Otherwise, this will be
>> my last message on this topic.
>> -Scott
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm clear. I was in the room. My perspective is that they didn't listen.
>>> They (you) can feel free to demonstrate to us that they did.
>>> Best,
>>> -M<
>>> > On Jun 30, 2014, at 20:17, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Asking me to do the work the AC ...
>>> >
>>> > To be clear, the draft policy was revised based on the
>>> > input received and the AC is doing -_their_ job by asking
>>> > if there remains any objections.
>>> >
>>> > The job of those in the community is to express any concerns
>>> > that they still have with regards to the recommended draft policy.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> > /John
>>> >
>>> > John Curran
>>> > President and CEO
>>> > ARIN
>>> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140630/33e42c61/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list