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

[David Farmer]

To clarify, I believe your voice counts, even if you only ever participate
in this single issue. I was suggesting, that more participation is even
better and that it also takes away that argument from those that perceive
single-issue participation as an issue.

Sorry, if that wasn't clear on my part.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:29 PM Jason Baugher <jasonbaugher at adamstel.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> 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
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:05 PM
> To: 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
>
> 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
>
> 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: 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
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID: <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).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact 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"
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID: <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> 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"
> 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
> Cc: "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> 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).
> >
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >
> > https://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:
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> 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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact 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/>
> [image: 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.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


-- 
===============================================
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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20201104/033612ed/attachment.htm>