[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2

Wed Nov 4 13:29:35 EST 2020

As an organization that decided to support ARIN-2020-2, this was also our first foray into participation in this group. We never expected the response we've had to what seemed like it would be an honest policy debate. In additionl to someone accusing companies like us of taking "incentives" from Stratus for support, another implied that we shouldn't have a voice because we are a "single-issue participant". I would remind them that everyone on this list was a single-issue participant the first time they spoke up in favor or against a policy change, and we have just as much right as everyone else to have a voice here. If you wonder why more orgs don't participate in these policy discussions, maybe look at how this particular debate has proceeded for your answer.

Stratus has offered us no incentives. As an ISP in their region, they merely reached out to us, asked that we look at the information for ourselves, and if we agreed, to voice our support. Whether ARIN-2020-2 succeeds or fails has no impact on our operations. We support it strictly on its merits.

Jason

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Eric Lee
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:20 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/staticmediafiles/media/sights/iron-icon.png]
IRONSCALES finds this email suspicious! The sender elee at mdtc.net<mailto:elee at mdtc.net> may look familiar to you, but this email might be an impersonation attempt

CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization.
Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you know it's safe.

In response to David, I think it's important that entities be involved in the process. I was unaware of an ability to have a voice until this issue. It's important that we become engaged in this community as the issues are important to all. Whether it's this issue, the discussion of IPV6 or other methods of tackling the IP space issue, or any other matter addressed in this forum, we should all be working together to resolve those issues by giving our input. If entities become engaged in the broader forum because of this topic, then that's not necessarily a bad thing.

In response to Tom, he describes it fairly. There was nothing from Stratus other than a request for support and information about how to get involved. There was no follow-up from them on the request. We determined that the issue had merit and put our support behind it.

-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of arin-ppml-request at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:05 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 185, Issue 6

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://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<mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-owner at arin.net<mailto: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: Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2:
Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 (David Farmer)
2. Re: Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 (John Santos)
3. Re: Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 (Joe Provo)
4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of
ARIN-2019-16 (Tom Pruitt)
5. Re: Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 (Martin Hannigan)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:06:06 -0600
From: David Farmer
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

As I have said before, I believe that the implementation of ARIN-2019-16 was fair, more precisely, I believe it was objectively fair. Nevertheless, I think we can all acknowledge that subjectively, it never quite seems fair when you're the one that ends up with the short end of the stick, however objectively fair the decision actually was. Accordingly, I have some empathy for those that ended up with the short end of the stick in this situation, through no fault of their own, and support this policy to restore at least some of those dropped from the waiting list by the implementation of ARIN-2019-16, even though I don't think we can or should restore everyone that was dropped.

Further, more participation is always a good thing for the Policy Development Process (PDP). However, there is at least the perception that many of the new participants are participating in the discussion of only this single issue, if true, this is not healthy participation, this perception concerns me. My suggestion to these new participants is, for you to combat this perception by reviewing and commenting on the many other policies under discussion. Please don't allow yourself to be tagged, and possibly dismissed, as a single-issue participant.

Thank you.

--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:37:49 -0500
From: John Santos
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
Message-ID: <7bb438ed-94fd-49af-5854-e69da42a43df at egh.com<mailto:7bb438ed-94fd-49af-5854-e69da42a43df at egh.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

I thought we went through all this when the policy change was adopted. The issues at the time, as best I understood them, were requests that exceeded the new limit and requests from organizations that already have large allocations or assignments. The options discussed, for both issues, was whether to retain the existing requests, to allow the organizations to reduce their request to the new maximum (or lower) while retaining their place in line, or to drop requesters who exceeded the maximum current holdings or who were making a large request completely. (If they met the new policy, they could file a new request and go to the end of the line.)

I didn't pay much attention because my company's current size (a legacy class C) is sufficient, and some day, hopefully in this millennium, one or both of our ISPs will offer IPv6. (They both have been claiming to have it in testing for years, but no announced availability dates, last time I checked.)

And mostly, the whole thing was academic because the free pool was essentially empty and there seemed to be little prospect of any returns that would refill it, so no one on the wait list, unless they were seeking an initial /24, had any real chance of getting anything, and even they would probably have to wait a while.

IIRC, the adopted policy was to offer orgs on the wait list who's request was too large the chance to drop their request size, and remove anyone whose current holdings were too large, sort of a middle course.

The kid in front of Oliver wants an entire pot of porridge, but there's barely enough to give Oliver a second scoop, let alone another bowl. I think this discussion and proposal are a major waste of time and effort and I oppose.

On 11/2/2020 8:50 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML
> > wrote:
>
> I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this is "special
> benefits".
>
>
> Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities changes create.
> Governments do it and business does it. To some extent, the could be
> called "special benefits". However, the context of that is different,
> some feel the benefits create an inequity rather than resolve one.
>
> Organizations went through the approved process to get on the wait list to
> *possibly* be assigned an address block. The policy on allocations was
> changed, however the organizations did everything by the book per previous
> policy. The organization is now told that they have to go through the
> process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do with potential space
> allocation. I am all for limiting the allocation amount in the future.
> However, to penalize an organization that has followed the process to this
> point is unfair. This also is no guarantee that these organizations will
> receive an allocation. More likely, they'll continue to wait.
>
> This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations that went through
> the proper process of what was approved policy at the time. A similar
> scenario would be arresting someone who has broken a law, prior to the
> offense becoming law.
>
>
> The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that
> grandfathering addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting nothing?
> There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as far as
> I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself
> requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting
> minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with much at all.
>
>
>
> I continue to support this policy, not because I agree that larger requests
> should be granted, but because the organizations had followed the approved
> process and policies.
>
>
> I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't seen
> strong arguments one way or the other.
>
> Fair enough. Thank you.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>

--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:50:32 -0500
From: Joe Provo
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
Message-ID: <20201102175031.GA14552 at gweep.net<mailto:20201102175031.GA14552 at gweep.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:50:16AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>> wrote:
[snip]
> The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that grandfathering
> addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting
> nothing? There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as
> far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself
> requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting
> minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with
> much at all.

Speaking only for myself, not any employer or any elected
capacity, I oppose the policy precisely because it is a
one-time action for one set of entities and (by its own
logic) still leaving another set of affected entities [as
noted by Andrew Dul 22 Oct) in the current state. I
personally expected the community to respond to ARIN-2019-16
in some way, but as a more structural approach to wait-list
handling, not a one-time action for a set of parties.

Policies change, sometimes they apply going forward and other
times they apply universally. The wait list has changed and
will change in future in response to the needs of the community;
it has never carried any guarantee or lack of risk.

Cheers,

Joe

--
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:51:50 +0000
From: Tom Pruitt
To: ARIN , "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2:
Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation
of ARIN-2019-16
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

As a result of the waitlist requirements being changed without grandfathering to those that were on it, Stratus decided to educate ourselves as to how ARIN and their policies work. We have taken that education and in turn tried to educate others in the community that might not be aware. We have let those that we have spoken with know how ARIN works and what happened in our situation. Some of the posts in support have come from those we have educated, but many have come from those we don?t know. To be clear here we did not tell anyone what to say, fake anything or offer anything whatsoever in return for engaging in the discussion or giving support. Any accusations of the kind are defamatory and false. It is our hope that those we have brought to the conversation table will remain engaged moving forward and educate others they know. The more opinions that can be brought into ARIN the better the community will be as a whole moving into the future. This conve
rsation itself seems to have fallen off the tracks a bit. The bottom line is we believe that the AC did not properly address what to do with the organizations that were on the list but would be eliminated at the time of implementation of ARIN-2019-16. We believe this was an error. We believe the fair thing to do is address it in retrospect and the fair thing to do is grandfather those organizations. This is spelled out in the proposal. We also believe that the AC should learn from this mistake in future changes.

Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks

This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:04:29 -0500
From: Martin Hannigan
To: ppml at rsuc.gweep.net<mailto:ppml at rsuc.gweep.net>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Makes sense to me combined with the other posts, my reading and Owen?s
documented thoughts.

I?m not in favor.

Thank you to all the posters. Including the new ones. Welcome.

Warm regards,

-M<

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 12:50 Joe Provo wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:50:16AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML <
>
> > arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that grandfathering
>
> > addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting
>
> > nothing? There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as
>
> > far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself
>
> > requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting
>
> > minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with
>
> > much at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> Speaking only for myself, not any employer or any elected
>
> capacity, I oppose the policy precisely because it is a
>
> one-time action for one set of entities and (by its own
>
> logic) still leaving another set of affected entities [as
>
> noted by Andrew Dul 22 Oct) in the current state. I
>
> personally expected the community to respond to ARIN-2019-16
>
> in some way, but as a more structural approach to wait-list
>
> handling, not a one-time action for a set of parties.
>
>
>
> Policies change, sometimes they apply going forward and other
>
> times they apply universally. The wait list has changed and
>
> will change in future in response to the needs of the community;
>
> it has never carried any guarantee or lack of risk.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> --
>
> Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
>
> Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ARIN-PPML
>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

------------------------------

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 185, Issue 6
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager
405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | www.adams.net<http://www.adams.net/>
[Adams-Logo]<http://adams.net/>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, reproduce or use this email message (or the attachments) and notify the sender of the mistaken transmission. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20201104/6bb57863/attachment.htm>