From john at egh.com Wed Apr 7 14:59:41 2021 From: john at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:59:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <873d1a85-5fb2-957a-1147-328030b6f856@egh.com> Strangely, this just arrived a few minutes ago, even though the timestamp is almost two weeks ago!? I support this in concept. However, isn't it just an editorial change and thus not requiring the full-blown policy process? -- John Santos On 3/26/2021 8:19 AM, ARIN wrote: > The following Draft Policy has been revised: > > * ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image > in Section 2 > > Revised text is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_11/ > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate > the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with > ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy > Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > > * Technically Sound > > * Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > > Senior Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource > Hierarchy Image in Section 2 > > Problem Statement: > > The beginning of Section 2 in the NRPM shows a diagram of how addressing > responsibility is delegated. However, this image does not appear to have a > description or even alt text, and the actual text is not selectable. This could > have accessibility implications, especially those with sight-related > disabilities, or if the NRPM is translated into other languages. > > Policy statement: > > Proposal: Add the following text before the image in Section 2: > > Responsibility for management of number resources is distributed globally in > accordance with the following procedures: > > * Global number resource management is performed by the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA distributes number resources to RIRs (AfriNIC, > APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC), but not directly to LIRs (Local Internet > Registries) or end users. > > * RIRs, such as ARIN, distribute number resources to LIRs and directly to > end-user organizations. > > * LIRs may further delegate number resources to other LIRs, as well as to other > end-user organizations. > > Replace the text ?ISP Internet Service Provider? in the graphic with the text > ?LIR Local Internet Registry? > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From andrew.dul at quark.net Wed Apr 7 15:45:26 2021 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:45:26 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2 In-Reply-To: <873d1a85-5fb2-957a-1147-328030b6f856@egh.com> References: <873d1a85-5fb2-957a-1147-328030b6f856@egh.com> Message-ID: This draft is intended to be moved out of draft policy as an editorial update. The text has been updated based upon suggestions on PPML and in the AC.? We will quickly present an update on this next week at the meeting and then I intend to move this forward as an editorial update unless there are other issues which are raised by the current text. Thanks, Andrew On 4/7/2021 11:59 AM, John Santos wrote: > Strangely, this just arrived a few minutes ago, even though the > timestamp is almost two weeks ago!? > > I support this in concept.? However, isn't it just an editorial change > and thus not requiring the full-blown policy process? > > -- John Santos > > > On 3/26/2021 8:19 AM, ARIN wrote: >> The following Draft Policy has been revised: >> >> * ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource >> Hierarchy Image in Section 2 >> >> Revised text is below and can be found at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_11/ >> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this >> Draft Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource >> policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). >> Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> >> * Technically Sound >> >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The PDP can be found at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Sean Hopkins >> >> Senior Policy Analyst >> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number >> Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> The beginning of Section 2 in the NRPM shows a diagram of how >> addressing responsibility is delegated. However, this image does not >> appear to have a description or even alt text, and the actual text is >> not selectable. This could have accessibility implications, >> especially those with sight-related disabilities, or if the NRPM is >> translated into other languages. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Proposal: Add the following text before the image in Section 2: >> >> Responsibility for management of number resources is distributed >> globally in accordance with the following procedures: >> >> * Global number resource management is performed by the Internet >> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA distributes number resources >> to RIRs (AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC), but not >> directly to LIRs (Local Internet Registries) or end users. >> >> * RIRs, such as ARIN, distribute number resources to LIRs and >> directly to end-user organizations. >> >> * LIRs may further delegate number resources to other LIRs, as well >> as to other end-user organizations. >> >> Replace the text ?ISP Internet Service Provider? in the graphic with >> the text ?LIR Local Internet Registry? >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > From farmer at umn.edu Thu Apr 8 22:49:40 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:49:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommend Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8 Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee Message-ID: On the web page for ARIN-2020-8, under the Staff and Legal Review, the third bullet under Implementation Requirements, refers to ARIN-2020-6 and seems to be relevant to that policy and not this policy, I believe this to be a cut-and-past error. https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/ Thanks. -- =============================================== 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: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Apr 8 23:12:04 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:12:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?Draft_policy_ARIN-2020-6_Allowance_for_IPv?= =?utf-8?q?4_Allocation_=E2=80=9CSwap=E2=80=9D_Transactions_via_8?= =?utf-8?q?=2E3_Specified_Transfers_and_8=2E4_Inter-RIR_Transfers?= Message-ID: I support the intent of this policy. I suggest the addition of the word ?pre-approved? to the text that is added to Sections 8.3 and 8.4. ... transferring resources as part of a pre-approved renumbering plan... According the comments provided in policy, ARIN staff currently requires pre-approval for this practice, and I believe that is appropriate and the policy should explicitly require pre-approval for this practice. -- =============================================== 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: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Apr 8 23:20:10 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:20:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification Message-ID: I support this policy as written.-- =============================================== 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: From shopkins at arin.net Thu Apr 8 23:46:38 2021 From: shopkins at arin.net (Sean Hopkins) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 03:46:38 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommend Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8 Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E7F7C20-940E-4C8A-BC1F-4BBEDB874CDA@arin.net> Hi David, The website issue you identified has been corrected. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers > On Apr 8, 2021, at 10:49 PM, ARIN-PPML List wrote: > > On the web page for ARIN-2020-8, under the Staff and Legal Review, the third bullet under Implementation Requirements, refers to ARIN-2020-6 and seems to be relevant to that policy and not this policy, I believe this to be a cut-and-past error. > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/ > > Thanks. > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > 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. From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 9 16:18:47 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 20:18:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] FYI - Consultation on ARIN Fees References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> Message-ID: Folks - As noted in the attached announcement, we?re starting a new consultation over on the arin-consult mailing list regarding ARIN?s 2022 fee schedule ? please join and participate if you have interest in that topic. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers == Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN > Subject: [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees Date: 9 April 2021 at 4:10:33 PM EDT To: "arin-announce at arin.net" > ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 As the use of the ARIN registry continues to grow, we continue to invest in our services in order to meet the changing needs. One significant change we have seen with the runout of IPv4 is the maturity of the transfer market, a development which has enabled better overall utilization of the fixed IPv4 address space and led to reutilization of IPv4 resource assignments to meet the growing needs of organizations of all types. ARIN provides equivalent services to end users and ISP customers, but it has had two very distinct fee schedules due to historical difference in use. For example, our investment in the ARIN Internet Routing Registry (IRR), Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and DNSSEC services improve network security across the Internet and are being used by all types of ARIN customers. However, in many cases, organizations receiving similar services from ARIN are paying significantly different fees today ? for example, two hosting companies each with the same 65,000 IPv4 addresses (/16) may find that one is paying more than 25 times as much as the other despite receiving the same services from ARIN. In 2022, ARIN will transition all customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held. This change will ensure costs are distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the current fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. The proposed fee change also brings those with resources issued before the formation of ARIN (legacy resource holders) into the new Fee Schedule, thus providing for uniform treatment of all ARIN customers. Legacy resource holders have enjoyed a cap on total registry maintenance fees, and this continues to be applied under the new Fee Schedule, although it is also made clear that the total cap will increase $25 per year, thus recognizing the contribution of the earliest Internet pioneers while enabling a long-term transition to equitable fees for all. In addition, it has been recognized that the increased numbers of transfers and related organizational record changes take significant ARIN resources, and could result in extended processing times without appropriate resources. This is addressed with fee changes in those specific transaction types to allow ARIN to continue to continue to provide timely services with equitable cost recovery. Finally, in response to a suggestion from the community, the ARIN Board of Trustees proposes a temporary waiver with regard to fees applicable to those requesting very small IPv6 blocks in order to avoid a fee category change, and the new Fee Schedule includes a specific waiver to address this situation. These changes have the added benefit of allowing ARIN to maintain robust and redundant operational infrastructures, so that we can guarantee our services are online and accessible at all times. It will also allow ARIN to continue to develop and provide the high-quality services demanded by our customers and the Internet community, including our routing security services which are increasingly crucial to all of our customers. Please view the proposed 2022 Fee Schedule at: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2022_fee_schedule/ This consultation will remain open for 30 days, after which a summary will be provided to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 10 May. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Announce You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From celestea at usc.edu Tue Apr 13 12:43:03 2021 From: celestea at usc.edu (Celeste Anderson) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:43:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions In-Reply-To: <9F675932-CBF3-4794-86F8-CB81DAB19306@arin.net> References: <40A5BB4D-C5A8-4817-B827-2FB139BC2366@arin.net> , <9F675932-CBF3-4794-86F8-CB81DAB19306@arin.net> Message-ID: Howdy, These changes seem fine to me. Won't be able to attend discussion later today so wanted to go on record as supporting the changes. Celeste Anderson celestea at pacificwave.net ________________________________ From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of Sean Hopkins Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:19 PM To: Chris Woodfield ; Martin Hannigan Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions Hi Chris, Martin, and PPML, The proposed language changes in https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/arin_edit_2020_9_v2.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63pg_ugrc$ have been captured in a markup document viewable at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/ARIN_edit_2020_9_markup.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63h250uFk$ . Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers > On Mar 25, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Sean Hopkins wrote: > > Hi Chris, Martin, and PPML, > > Staff will generate a marked-up document that mirrors the proposed language changes in https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/arin_edit_2020_9_v2.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63pg_ugrc$ . I will update the list once complete. > > Sean Hopkins > Senior Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers > >> On Mar 23, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: >> >> Agreed - the linked PDF does not show any redlined changes. Was the wrong version of the PDF posted? >> >> -C >> >>> On Mar 23, 2021, at 8:17 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Did you mean to say that there was a markup "red line" showing the changes? If there is, I don't see it or anything that lets someone easily ascertain what's being proposed change wise. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:11 AM ARIN wrote: >>> On 18 March 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) classified "ARIN-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions" as an Editorial Change to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). >>> >>> >>> >>> The text is below and can be found at: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ARIN_edit_2020_9/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63Tn01qZo$ >>> >>> >>> >>> The process for Editorial Changes is found in Part One, Section 3.1, paragraph 3 of the Policy Development Process (PDP): >>> >>> >>> >>> "Changes to policy that are purely editorial and non-substantial in nature are outside the scope of the full Policy Development Process and may only be made with 30 days public notice followed by the concurrence of both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees that the changes are non-substantial in nature." >>> >>> >>> >>> Your feedback on this Editorial Change is encouraged. The review period will close on 22 April 2021. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Number Resource Policy Manual is available at: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63fYQiIZ4$ >>> >>> >>> >>> The PDP is available at: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63nEKbaDc$ >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Sean Hopkins >>> >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions >>> >>> >>> >>> Problem Statement: >>> >>> >>> >>> ARIN staff have identified some areas of potential editorial clean-up of section 4 of the NRPM. Building on those recommendations the ARIN AC NRPM Clean-up Working Group undertook an editorial review of section 4. >>> >>> >>> >>> The focus of the review was to clarify and simplify language, employ consistent and more up to date terminology throughout and renumber the sections after removing section numbers that were no longer being utilized. In the course of this work, we discovered the need for certain changes to sections 2, 3, and 6. We included those that are editorial in nature in this proposal. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other changes to those three sections will be addressed in subsequent proposals. We are also proposing that the NRPM Table of Contents be updated to reflect the editorial changes to the NRPM contents contained in this proposal. >>> >>> >>> >>> Policy Statement: >>> >>> >>> >>> The changes proposed to be made in this editorial proposal are too numerous to list individually. Accordingly, a document is provided at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/arin_edit_2020_9_v2.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63pg_ugrc$ that shows the changes being proposed as mark-up text relative to the version of the NRPM in effect when the editorial work of the Working Group started. >>> >>> >>> >>> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate >>> >>> >>> >>> Anything Else: >>> >>> >>> >>> This proposal is intended to be editorial in nature. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63kmJ5wgk$ >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63kmJ5wgk$ >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63kmJ5wgk$ >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!-nXPFoAOOSBbmMSatNRCtcDb79vleSdw1yNnB_yHrSforI4ZoZ9nLB63kmJ5wgk$ Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.huberman at icann.org Wed Apr 14 13:01:35 2021 From: david.huberman at icann.org (David Huberman) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:01:35 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 8.2 transfer - abandonment rate Message-ID: <22BE24B3-37EB-4D55-A378-9C7DDAE40676@icann.org> Hello, I have a stats request please, for the purposes of determining if there is an opportunity for policy to assist the community. Is there a reasonable way to measure ?abandonment rate? of 8.2 transfers for a recent 12 month period? Some calculus that takes into account approved/denied/closed where closed is mostly because the parties stopped responding. And are there any historical measurements of this we could compare the new numbers to? My fuzzy memory seems to think ARIN used to have some abandonment stats on transfers, but I may be incorrect. Thank you! David (speaking for myself, not my employer) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shopkins at arin.net Wed Apr 14 13:14:39 2021 From: shopkins at arin.net (Sean Hopkins) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:14:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 8.2 transfer - abandonment rate In-Reply-To: <22BE24B3-37EB-4D55-A378-9C7DDAE40676@icann.org> References: <22BE24B3-37EB-4D55-A378-9C7DDAE40676@icann.org> Message-ID: <9A053078-5378-4FB1-8AD7-238AB3D08405@arin.net> Hi David, Staff is attempting to gather this information and will post it here once we have it. Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers > On Apr 14, 2021, at 1:01 PM, David Huberman wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a stats request please, for the purposes of determining if there is an opportunity for policy to assist the community. > > Is there a reasonable way to measure ?abandonment rate? of 8.2 transfers for a recent 12 month period? Some calculus that takes into account approved/denied/closed where closed is mostly because the parties stopped responding. And are there any historical measurements of this we could compare the new numbers to? My fuzzy memory seems to think ARIN used to have some abandonment stats on transfers, but I may be incorrect. > > Thank you! > David > (speaking for myself, not my employer) > > _______________________________________________ > 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. From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Apr 15 17:55:18 2021 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 17:55:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 In-Reply-To: <3DDE7BA9-82AF-42F6-A648-B4FFDC849171@semihuman.com> References: <7E53EB8C-4969-4809-9DBC-04598E8261B0@arin.net> <3DDE7BA9-82AF-42F6-A648-B4FFDC849171@semihuman.com> Message-ID: Just waking up here with regards to the Section 10 change. While the section 10 changes are subtle they are also problematic. I suggest abandoning the Section 10 change. It is not worth it. Nor is it necessary. And it may even be undesirable. Nowhere in the NRPM s the term ASN defined except in Section 10. When you string it together such as "Autonomous System Number (ASN)" you imply that you are creating a precise meaning. It is in Section 10. It has global implications. The precise meaning was agreed to by ALL FIVE RIR's. If we make this change, we make it imprecise. While there may be contractual language elsewhere that define this term e.g. PTI agreement, conflict causes confusion. And considering its a global policy change, do we want that? It would require a round of global policy ratification in each RIR. There is a better issue to resolve in Section 5 which doesn't involve global policy. "Autonomous System Numbers (AS Numbers)". I would instead change that to ASN or remove it and let the Section 10 term work backwards. That's sort of a hack but I think it works at least from the POV of a defined term. If we don't care about nerd-legalese then why not just ignore them both? I have two suggestions: The first is ever embed a global policy change in another policy. In fact, one rule change, one policy as a standard might be nice. The second is tactical. If we do feel like we want to change the defined term in Section 10, split it out of this proposal and into its own. It will make life simpler, although I doubt it will avoid a global goat rodeo asking "when is a change a change". Not in favor of this proposal as it stands at this point. Probably should've noticed the section 10 item earlier. It is what it is. The changes to the non global stuff are fine. The change to the global item may be fine, but together they are not fine. Warm regards, -M< On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:46 PM Chris Woodfield wrote: > Reading these changes, the majority of these proposed updates appear > strictly editorial, but a few appear to at least have the potential to have > an effect on policy, however subtle, as references to ASNs are being added > in a few places where it wasn?t before, replacing the term ?IPv4 address > resources? had been used prior - a term could be interpreted as to *not* > include ASNs. > > That said, these changes appear to be a positive clarification of the > existing policy, and as such, I support as written. > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > On Mar 9, 2021, at 12:45 PM, ARIN wrote: > > On 18 February 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-296: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10" as a Draft > Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_1/ > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated > in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Senior Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 > > Problem Statement: > > The community has raised concerns that the current language in Section 8 > is not clear regarding ASN-only transactions. There are also some language > and reference inconsistancies which should be addressed while adjusting > Section 8 and concordant adjustments to Sections 2 and 10. > > Policy Statement: > > Add a definition for ASN in Section 2: > > Section 2.X Autonomous System Number (ASN) > > An Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a unique identifier which represents > a collection of network resources operated under a common routing policy > administration, known as an autonomous system. > > In Section 8.2: > > Replace > > ?The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 > transfer will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during the process > of the 8.2 transfer.? > > with > > ?The Internet number resources being transferred as part of a transfer > under section 8.2 will not be subject to a needs-based assessment during > the process of the transfer.? > > Replace > > ?The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired the assets > that use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.? > > with > > ?The recipient must provide evidence that it has acquired the assets that > use the resources to be transferred from the current registrant.? > > Replace > > ?The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire entity which > is the current registrant.? > > with > > ?The recipient must show that it has acquired the entire entity which is > the current registrant.? > > Replace > > ?An organization which serves as the source of an 8.2 IPv4 transfer will > not be allowed to apply for IPv4 address space under section 4.1.8 ARIN > Waitlist for a period of 36 months following said transfer unless the > recipient organization remains a subsidiary, parent company, or under > common ownership with the source organization.? > > with > > ?An organization which serves as the source of an IPv4 transfer under > section 8.2 will not be allowed to apply for IPv4 address space under > section 4.1.8 ARIN Waitlist for a period of 36 months following said > transfer unless the recipient organization remains a subsidiary, parent > company, or under common ownership with the source organization.? > > In Section 8.3: > > Replace > > ?In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources and > ASNs may be transferred according to the following conditions.? > > with > > ?In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 address and/or ASN > resources may be transferred according to the following conditions.? > > Replace > > ?The source entity must be the current registered holder of the IPv4 > address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of > those resources.? > > with > > ?The source entity must be the current registered holder of the IPv4 > address and/or ASN resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the > status of those resources.? > > Replace > > ?Number resources received as the result of an 8.2 transfer are out of > scope for the purposes of this restriction.? > > with > > ?Number resources received as the result of a transfer under section 8.2 > are out of scope for the purposes of this restriction.? > > In Section 8.4: > > Replace > > ?Inter-regional transfers of IPv4 number resources and ASNs may take place > only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible > needs-based policies.? > > with > > ?Inter-regional transfers of IPv4 addresses and/or ASN resources may take > place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, > compatible needs-based policies.? > > Replace > > ?The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 address > resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not be > involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.? > > with > > ?The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 address > and/or ASN resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, > and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.? > > Replace > > ?Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, > allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 > months prior to the approval of a transfer request, unless either the > source or recipient entity owns or controls the other, or both are under > common ownership or control. Number resources received as the result of an > 8.2 transfer are out of scope for the purposes of this restriction.? > > with > > ?Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, > allocation, or assignment of IPv4 addresses from ARIN for the 12 months > prior to the approval of a transfer request, unless either the source or > recipient entity owns or controls the other, or both are under common > ownership or control. Number resources received as the result of a section > 8.2 transfer are out of scope for the purposes of this restriction.? > > Add a space between ?Section? and ?4.4? in the fourth bullet under > ?Conditions on source of the transfer? > > In Section 8.5.6: > > Replace > > ?Organizations with direct assignments or allocations from ARIN must have > efficiently utilized at least 50% of their cumulative IPv4 address blocks > in order to receive additional space. This includes all space reassigned to > their customers.? > > with > > ?Organizations with direct assignments or allocations from ARIN must have > efficiently utilized at least 50% of their cumulative IPv4 address blocks > in order to receive additional IPv4 space. This includes all IPv4 space > reassigned to their customers.? > > In Section 8.5.7: > > Replace > > ?In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4 > address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently > allocated space.? > > with > > ?In lieu of the requirements in sections 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations > may qualify for additional IPv4 address blocks by demonstrating 80% > utilization of their currently allocated space.? > > Replace > > ?An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in > any 6 month period.? > > with > > ?An organization may qualify via section 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 > equivalent in any 6 month period.? > > In Section 10.3: > > Replace > > ?This document describes the policy governing the allocation of Autonomous > System Numbers (ASNs) from the IANA to the Regional Internet Registries > (RIRs).? > > with > > ?This document describes the policy governing the allocation of ASNs from > the IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).? > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate. > > Anything else: > > This proposal is intended to be purely editorial in nature > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From ppml at rsuc.gweep.net Thu Apr 15 18:14:08 2021 From: ppml at rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 18:14:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 In-Reply-To: References: <7E53EB8C-4969-4809-9DBC-04598E8261B0@arin.net> <3DDE7BA9-82AF-42F6-A648-B4FFDC849171@semihuman.com> Message-ID: <20210415221408.GA16703@gweep.net> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:55:18PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Just waking up here with regards to the Section 10 change. > > While the section 10 changes are subtle they are also problematic. I > suggest abandoning the Section 10 change. It is not worth it. Nor is it > necessary. And it may even be undesirable. > > Nowhere in the NRPM s the term ASN defined except in Section 10. When you That is what is corrected in this policy: Section 2.X Autonomous System Number (ASN) An Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a unique identifier which represents a collection of network resources operated under a common routing policy administration, known as an autonomous system. https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_1/ > string it together such as "Autonomous System Number (ASN)" you imply that > you are creating a precise meaning. It is in Section 10. It has global > implications. The precise meaning was agreed to by ALL FIVE RIR's. If we > make this change, we make it imprecise. While there may be contractual > language elsewhere that define this term e.g. PTI agreement, conflict > causes confusion. And considering its a global policy change, do we want > that? It would require a round of global policy ratification in each RIR. I fail to see how the proposed definition in section 2 is anything but more precise than the existing Section 10 text, which doesn't *define* anything, merely introduces the acronym with the text "Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)". In most all contracts and technical documentation, one introduces an acronym once, at its earliers use, hence including the trivial editorial change from "Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)" to "ASNs" after the definition (again, above) is established. IMO, if we have set ourselves up with a system where such a trivial change requires massive effort across all the RIRs we made a mistake. Either the meat of [our] section 10 should be a separate document entity, incorporated by reference rather in the body, or we should assert that section 10 should never be touched regardless of how illogical it makes the rest of the document. The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Apr 15 18:40:19 2021 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 18:40:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 In-Reply-To: <20210415221408.GA16703@gweep.net> References: <7E53EB8C-4969-4809-9DBC-04598E8261B0@arin.net> <3DDE7BA9-82AF-42F6-A648-B4FFDC849171@semihuman.com> <20210415221408.GA16703@gweep.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Joe Provo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:55:18PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > [clip ] That is what is corrected in this policy: > > Section 2.X Autonomous System Number (ASN) > > An Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a unique identifier which represents a > collection of network resources operated under a common routing policy > administration, known as an autonomous system. > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_1/ > > OK and... > string it together such as "Autonomous System Number (ASN)" you imply that > > you are creating a precise meaning. It is in Section 10. It has global > > implications. The precise meaning was agreed to by ALL FIVE RIR's. If we > > make this change, we make it imprecise. While there may be contractual > > language elsewhere that define this term e.g. PTI agreement, conflict > > causes confusion. And considering its a global policy change, do we want > > that? It would require a round of global policy ratification in each RIR. > > I fail to see how the proposed definition in section 2 is anything but > more precise than the existing Section 10 text, which doesn't *define* > anything, merely introduces the acronym with the text "Autonomous System > Numbers (ASNs)". In most all contracts and technical documentation, one > introduces an acronym once, at its earliers use, hence including the > trivial editorial change from "Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)" to > "ASNs" after the definition (again, above) is established. > It is. However, the text in Section 10 has to be agreed by all five RIR's which means it goes off to global policy land. Just thinking out of the box. Normally, I would agree, but changing section 10 for editorial changes is a problem regardless. > IMO, if we have set ourselves up with a system where such a trivial > change requires massive effort across all the RIRs we made a mistake. > Either the meat of [our] section 10 should be a separate document > entity, incorporated by reference rather in the body, or we should > assert that section 10 should never be touched regardless of how > illogical it makes the rest of the document. > This is the first time that I can recall a policy was put forward containing multiple rule changes. And the first we've seen a global policy "editorial" change. The process is what it is. I made a few suggestions which are enactable in ARIN land and probably solve most of the problem. They don't really have the power to ignore the other items in the policy for example. They could be edited out as part of the process, but not by the ASO, the five RIR's. But more wheels. However, it does not solve the "editorial" change itself. It is a change. Maybe someone smarter/shiftier can figure out a work around to make an editorial change of a global policy? The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial > change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times. > > I could be wrong. If it goes forward and I am, beer is on me. But you'll be waiting at least two years in theory. Which is still a waste of time for such a change IMHO. However, if it does go forward, count on me to start the when is a change a change discussion. YMMV Warm regards, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ppml at rsuc.gweep.net Thu Apr 15 19:06:43 2021 From: ppml at rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:06:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 In-Reply-To: References: <7E53EB8C-4969-4809-9DBC-04598E8261B0@arin.net> <3DDE7BA9-82AF-42F6-A648-B4FFDC849171@semihuman.com> <20210415221408.GA16703@gweep.net> Message-ID: <20210415230643.GA26723@gweep.net> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 06:40:19PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: [snip] > It is. However, the text in Section 10 has to be agreed by all five RIR's > which means it goes off to global policy land. Just thinking out of the > box. Normally, I would agree, but changing section 10 for editorial changes > is a problem regardless. Then IMO we should incorporate into the developing style guide "don't touch section 10". > > The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial > > change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times. > > > I could be wrong. If it goes forward and I am, beer is on me. But you'll be > waiting at least two years in theory. Which is still a waste of time for > such a change IMHO. However, if it does go forward, count on me to start > the when is a change a change discussion. Point is, the shepherds could trim the section 10 bit and move it along if non-substantive changes to section 10 is really a problem. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Apr 15 19:09:31 2021 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:09:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 In-Reply-To: <20210415230643.GA26723@gweep.net> References: <7E53EB8C-4969-4809-9DBC-04598E8261B0@arin.net> <3DDE7BA9-82AF-42F6-A648-B4FFDC849171@semihuman.com> <20210415221408.GA16703@gweep.net> <20210415230643.GA26723@gweep.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:06 PM Joe Provo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 06:40:19PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > [snip] > > It is. However, the text in Section 10 has to be agreed by all five RIR's > > which means it goes off to global policy land. Just thinking out of the > > box. Normally, I would agree, but changing section 10 for editorial > changes > > is a problem regardless. > > Then IMO we should incorporate into the developing style guide > "don't touch section 10". > ACK +1 > > > The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial > > > change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times. > > > > > I could be wrong. If it goes forward and I am, beer is on me. But you'll > be > > waiting at least two years in theory. Which is still a waste of time for > > such a change IMHO. However, if it does go forward, count on me to start > > the when is a change a change discussion. > > Point is, the shepherds could trim the section 10 bit and move it > along if non-substantive changes to section 10 is really a problem. > > SGTM. -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Apr 16 00:35:44 2021 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 00:35:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding 2021-1 Was: Fwd: ARIN region draft global policy discussion FYI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For visibility. Your faithful ASO servant, -M< ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Martin Hannigan Date: Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:01 PM Subject: ARIN region draft global policy discussion FYI To: ASO Address Council Public Discussion List FYI only https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_1/ I wouldn't get too excited about this. IMHO: It is procedurally in-error and lacking a community understanding of the result of an innocuous change. However, it is a proposed change. The single policy with the global change contains other changes which are regional only and not global. It appears that the change was mostly missed in terms of scope and impact since it was part of the large rule change package submitted. It is currently only in the "draft" phase and will not be formally introduced to the ASO until it reaches the "recommended" stage. Early warning. Thanks, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shopkins at arin.net Fri Apr 16 14:24:27 2021 From: shopkins at arin.net (Sean Hopkins) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:24:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 8.2 transfer - abandonment rate In-Reply-To: <22BE24B3-37EB-4D55-A378-9C7DDAE40676@icann.org> References: <22BE24B3-37EB-4D55-A378-9C7DDAE40676@icann.org> Message-ID: <37F4ADCC-4E74-4161-A982-604F2D1CF58B@arin.net> Hi David, Regarding your request, please see: 8.2. Transfers by Status: [cid:image001.png at 01D732C8.2A476910] http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/images/8_2_transfers_by_status.png 8.2. Abandoned Transfers Before/After Payment [cid:image002.png at 01D732C8.2A476910] http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/images/8_2_transfers_abandoned_by_fee_paid.png *Note: A good percentage of the abandoned after payment were due to a need to either change the type of transfer or the receiving OrgID and were eventually completed. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers On Apr 14, 2021, at 1:01 PM, David Huberman wrote: Hello, I have a stats request please, for the purposes of determining if there is an opportunity for policy to assist the community. Is there a reasonable way to measure ?abandonment rate? of 8.2 transfers for a recent 12 month period? Some calculus that takes into account approved/denied/closed where closed is mostly because the parties stopped responding. And are there any historical measurements of this we could compare the new numbers to? My fuzzy memory seems to think ARIN used to have some abandonment stats on transfers, but I may be incorrect. Thank you! David (speaking for myself, not my employer) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 47283 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 35173 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From obrienjw at upenn.edu Mon Apr 19 14:00:05 2021 From: obrienjw at upenn.edu (John W. O'Brien) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:00:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: Intentional distinction? Message-ID: <25ff486d-0caa-db90-ffbd-37bcc842514d@upenn.edu> Good day PPML, With Emerson's admonition, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.", firmly in mind, I wonder about a few lingering inconsistencies in the proposed changes. Of the different ways that IPs are referred to in the proposed replacements, are any intended to have a different meaning or implication than the others? * "IPv4 address space" (8.2) * "IPv4 address resources" (8.3, 8.4) * "IPv4 addresses" (8.4) * "IPv4 address blocks" (8.5.6, 8.5.7) * "IPv4 space" (8.5.6) * "space" (8.5.7) My impression is that there is really only one kind of entity in play here, the canonical name of which is "IPv4 address resource(s)". "blocks" strikes me as semantically equivalent insofar as a block is the unit in which address resources are measured. "addresses" and the variations on "space", imply---or at least encompass---collections of individual addresses that are non-contiguous and/or non-co-terminal with CIDR boundaries. -John -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_0xD97D135B02EC753B.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 29092 bytes Desc: OpenPGP public key URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From david.huberman at icann.org Mon Apr 19 14:17:22 2021 From: david.huberman at icann.org (David Huberman) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:17:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] [Ext] Re: 8.2 transfer - abandonment rate In-Reply-To: <37F4ADCC-4E74-4161-A982-604F2D1CF58B@arin.net> References: <22BE24B3-37EB-4D55-A378-9C7DDAE40676@icann.org>, <37F4ADCC-4E74-4161-A982-604F2D1CF58B@arin.net> Message-ID: Thank you ARIN staff for these statistics. The level of detail in the stats is very helpful. It looks to me that the 8.2 transfers that requestors want to complete are, for the most part, being completed. So, as usual, ARIN staff is doing great! Thanks, David (Speaking for myself, not my employer) On Apr 16, 2021, at 2:24 PM, Sean Hopkins wrote: ? Hi David, Regarding your request, please see: 8.2. Transfers by Status: http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/images/8_2_transfers_by_status.png [arin.net] 8.2. Abandoned Transfers Before/After Payment http://www.arin.net/participate/policy/images/8_2_transfers_abandoned_by_fee_paid.png *Note: A good percentage of the abandoned after payment were due to a need to either change the type of transfer or the receiving OrgID and were eventually completed. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers On Apr 14, 2021, at 1:01 PM, David Huberman wrote: Hello, I have a stats request please, for the purposes of determining if there is an opportunity for policy to assist the community. Is there a reasonable way to measure ?abandonment rate? of 8.2 transfers for a recent 12 month period? Some calculus that takes into account approved/denied/closed where closed is mostly because the parties stopped responding. And are there any historical measurements of this we could compare the new numbers to? My fuzzy memory seems to think ARIN used to have some abandonment stats on transfers, but I may be incorrect. Thank you! David (speaking for myself, not my employer) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 47283 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 35173 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From john at egh.com Mon Apr 19 15:01:31 2021 From: john at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:01:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: Intentional distinction? In-Reply-To: <25ff486d-0caa-db90-ffbd-37bcc842514d@upenn.edu> References: <25ff486d-0caa-db90-ffbd-37bcc842514d@upenn.edu> Message-ID: <1a8ceb07-d91b-012d-210c-3c0035c39967@egh.com> On 4/19/2021 2:00 PM, John W. O'Brien wrote: > Good day PPML, > > With Emerson's admonition, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little > minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.", firmly in > mind, I wonder about a few lingering inconsistencies in the proposed changes. > > Of the different ways that IPs are referred to in the proposed replacements, are > any intended to have a different meaning or implication than the others? > > *?? "IPv4 address space" (8.2) > *?? "IPv4 address resources" (8.3, 8.4) > *?? "IPv4 addresses" (8.4) > *?? "IPv4 address blocks" (8.5.6, 8.5.7) > *?? "IPv4 space" (8.5.6) > *?? "space" (8.5.7) > > My impression is that there is really only one kind of entity in play here, the > canonical name of which is "IPv4 address resource(s)". "blocks" strikes me as > semantically equivalent insofar as a block is the unit in which address > resources are measured. "addresses" and the variations on "space", imply---or at > least encompass---collections of individual addresses that are non-contiguous > and/or non-co-terminal with CIDR boundaries. > > -John "IPv4 address block" has a distinctly different meaning from generic "IPv4 address space" in policy discussions. There are many circumstances where the number and size of address blocks matters and has important policy implications. If that wasn't true, ARIN could allocate individual, non-contiguous addresses to any recipient. I think (but am not certain), all the other terms are equivalent. As to whether the terms are used appropriately or correctly in all instances in the PPML, I have no idea. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From info at arin.net Tue Apr 20 14:41:03 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:41:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2021 Message-ID: <5E83C9BF-8D1C-4D34-9542-B5052F8029C3@arin.net> In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council (AC) met on 15 April 2021. The AC has advanced the following to Last Call (will be posted separately for discussion): * ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification * ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee The AC has classified the following as an Editorial Change (will be posted separately for discussion): * ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2 Per Part One, Section 3.1, paragraph 3 of the PDP: "Changes to policy that are purely editorial and non-substantial in nature are outside the scope of the full Policy Development Process and may only be made with 30 days public notice followed by the concurrence of both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees that the changes are non-substantial in nature." The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policies: * ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation ?Swap? Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers * ARIN-edit-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions * ARIN-2020-10: Removal of Requirement to Demonstrate Utilization of Reassignments and Reallocations for ISPs Seeking Initial Allocation from ARIN * ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10 * ARIN-2021-2: Special Use IPv4 Space Out of Scope for Purposes of Determining Waitlist Eligibility The PDP can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Tue Apr 20 14:43:52 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:43:52 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification Message-ID: <60B40649-B472-4962-A933-14F07A3B8569@arin.net> On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: * ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May 2021. The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_7/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: The draft Policy ARIN-2020-7 is fair, impartial ,technically sound and supported by the community. This draft policy removes ?new? from ?new GTLD? in NRPM Section 4.4 in an effort to reduce confusion for those who may view the policy itself as ?new? when it is from 2012. Problem Statement: As stated in NRPM section 4.4: Micro-allocation ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. The term ?new gTLD? is confusing and refers to all gTLD?s that have been created since June of 2012. Policy statement: ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. Comments: This proposal stems from a suggestion in the January, 2019 Policy Experience Report. Timetable for Implementation: Immediate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Tue Apr 20 14:44:04 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:44:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee Message-ID: On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: * ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May 2021. The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: This Draft Policy is fair, impartial, and technically sound. This draft policy replaces language identified as problematic by ARIN staff via the Policy Experience Report WG with a proper definition to keep the NRPM focused on numbers policy. Problem Statement: The January 2020 Policy Experience Report highlighted that the existing language in Section 4.2.1.2 ?Annual Renewal? references fees. Fees are not considered a member qualification criteria. Since fees aren?t referenced elsewhere in community policy, the wording was reviewed by the PEG. Policy Statement: Given that the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) already contains language regarding fees, the AC Shepherds recommend to eliminate 4.2.1.2. entirely and add: 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource holder. Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or future, are simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement (RSA). Comments: The AC?s understanding is that community policy should not include language referring to fees, as such language is already present in the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) Registration Services has informed us that ?Section 4.2.1.2. contains language detailing fee due dates, encouraging on-time payments, and mentions potential revocations. It also contains a reference to web documentation that has evolved significantly since this policy was implemented, and may continue to do so. Essentially the entire section is made of language that is already in the Registration Services Agreement, and is generally fee-focused, making it outside normal scope for Internet number resource policy.? Timetable for Implementation: Immediate Anything Else: Community input since adopting draft has informed this direction. The 2.X placeholder is used as this seems like it might be foundational enough to not be 2.17 but the Shepherds would rather not upset current indexing arbitrarily. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Tue Apr 20 14:44:46 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:44:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2 Message-ID: <5AF78D5D-83A8-4E50-913F-B2E58287FEDE@arin.net> On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) classified "ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2" as an Editorial Change to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). The text is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ARIN_edit_2020_11/ The process for Editorial Changes is found in Part One, Section 3.1, paragraph 3 of the Policy Development Process (PDP): "Changes to policy that are purely editorial and non-substantial in nature are outside the scope of the full Policy Development Process and may only be made with 30 days public notice followed by the concurrence of both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees that the changes are non-substantial in nature." Your feedback on this Editorial Change is encouraged. The review period will close on 20 May 2021. The Number Resource Policy Manual is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/ The PDP is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2 Problem Statement: The beginning of Section 2 in the NRPM shows a diagram of how addressing responsibility is delegated. However, this image does not appear to have a description or even alt text, and the actual text is not selectable. This could have accessibility implications, especially those with sight-related disabilities, or if the NRPM is translated into other languages. Policy Statement: Proposal: Add the following text before the image in Section 2: Responsibility for management of number resources is distributed globally in accordance with the following procedures: - Global number resource management is performed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA distributes number resources to RIRs (AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC), but not directly to LIRs (Local Internet Registries) or end users. - RIRs, such as ARIN, distribute number resources to LIRs and directly to end-user organizations. - LIRs may further delegate number resources to other LIRs, as well as to other end-user organizations. Replace the text ?ISP Internet Service Provider? in the graphic with the text ?LIR Local Internet Registry? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Apr 20 14:49:00 2021 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:49:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification In-Reply-To: <60B40649-B472-4962-A933-14F07A3B8569@arin.net> Message-ID: IMO this is editorial, but either way I support the clarification. -Scott ---------- On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:43 AM, ARIN wrote: On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: * ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May 2021. The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_7/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Senior Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: The draft Policy ARIN-2020-7 is fair, impartial ,technically sound and supported by the community. This draft policy removes ?new? from ?new GTLD? in NRPM Section 4.4 in an effort to reduce confusion for those who may view the policy itself as ?new? when it is from 2012. Problem Statement: As stated in NRPM section 4.4: Micro-allocation ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. The term ?new gTLD? is confusing and refers to all gTLD?s that have been created since June of 2012. Policy statement: ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. Comments: This proposal stems from a suggestion in the January, 2019 Policy Experience Report. Timetable for Implementation: Immediate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at semihuman.com Tue Apr 20 15:56:45 2021 From: chris at semihuman.com (Chris Woodfield) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:56:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <592C7230-4061-4F8E-9EEF-DD79BA600FE7@semihuman.com> I?d argue that this is not editorial, in that the use of the term ?new? at the time was intended to exclude the existing gTLDs from eligibility, where the proposed language does not. That said, I support as written. Thanks, -C > On Apr 20, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > IMO this is editorial, but either way I support the clarification. > > -Scott > > > > > ---------- > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:43 AM, ARIN > wrote: > On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: > > > > > * ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification > > > > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May 2021. > > > > > The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_7/ > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Senior Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification > > > > > AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: > > > > > The draft Policy ARIN-2020-7 is fair, impartial ,technically sound and supported by the community. This draft policy removes ?new? from ?new GTLD? in NRPM Section 4.4 in an effort to reduce confusion for those who may view the policy itself as ?new? when it is from 2012. > > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > > As stated in NRPM section 4.4: Micro-allocation > > > > > ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. > > > > > The term ?new gTLD? is confusing and refers to all gTLD?s that have been created since June of 2012. > > > > > Policy statement: > > > > > ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. > > > > > Comments: > > > > > This proposal stems from a suggestion in the January, 2019 Policy Experience Report. > > > > > Timetable for Implementation: Immediate > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From chris at semihuman.com Tue Apr 20 16:22:08 2021 From: chris at semihuman.com (Chris Woodfield) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 13:22:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <595F20BE-4917-4BAC-AA3C-B53C89AC90E3@semihuman.com> I question the use of the word ?contractural? vs ?contractual? here - per the OED, ?contractural? has two definitions, one of which is medical, the other being ?another term for ?contractual??*. So while the proposed language is technically correct, I feel that I will not be the first or the last person to think this might be a typo. I'd recommend changing that word, but otherwise support as written. Thanks, -Chris * See https://www.google.com/search?q=contractural - Google's definition results are provided by Oxford Languages. > On Apr 20, 2021, at 11:44 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: > > * ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May 2021. > > The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/ > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Senior Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee > > AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: > > This Draft Policy is fair, impartial, and technically sound. This draft policy replaces language identified as problematic by ARIN staff via the Policy Experience Report WG with a proper definition to keep the NRPM focused on numbers policy. > > Problem Statement: > > The January 2020 Policy Experience Report highlighted that the existing language in Section 4.2.1.2 ?Annual Renewal? references fees. Fees are not considered a member qualification criteria. Since fees aren?t referenced elsewhere in community policy, the wording was reviewed by the PEG. > > Policy Statement: > > Given that the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) already contains language regarding fees, the AC Shepherds recommend to eliminate 4.2.1.2. entirely and add: > > 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > > Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource holder. Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or future, are simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement (RSA). > > Comments: > > The AC?s understanding is that community policy should not include language referring to fees, as such language is already present in the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > > Registration Services has informed us that ?Section 4.2.1.2. contains language detailing fee due dates, encouraging on-time payments, and mentions potential revocations. It also contains a reference to web documentation that has evolved significantly since this policy was implemented, and may continue to do so. Essentially the entire section is made of language that is already in the Registration Services Agreement, and is generally fee-focused, making it outside normal scope for Internet number resource policy.? > > Timetable for Implementation: Immediate > > Anything Else: Community input since adopting draft has informed this direction. The 2.X placeholder is used as this seems like it might be foundational enough to not be 2.17 but the Shepherds would rather not upset current indexing arbitrarily. > _______________________________________________ > 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: From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Apr 20 16:37:15 2021 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:37:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee In-Reply-To: <595F20BE-4917-4BAC-AA3C-B53C89AC90E3@semihuman.com> References: <595F20BE-4917-4BAC-AA3C-B53C89AC90E3@semihuman.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:22 PM Chris Woodfield wrote: > I question the use of the word ?contractural? vs ?contractual? here - per > the OED, ?contractural? has two definitions, one of which is medical, the > other being ?another term for ?contractual??*. So while the proposed > language is technically correct, I feel that I will not be the first or the > last person to think this might be a typo. I'd recommend changing that > word, but otherwise support as written. > Agreed. Contracture is a medical term. Perhaps whoever wrote this understood that fees can risk contracture? :-) However, it seems more likely to be a Scrivener's Error which should simply be corrected without a lot of fanfare or risk. $0.02 Warm regards, -M< > Thanks, > > -Chris > > * See https://www.google.com/search?q=contractural - Google's definition > results are provided by Oxford Languages. > > On Apr 20, 2021, at 11:44 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following > Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: > > * ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May > 2021. > > The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/ > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Senior Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual > Renewal Fee > > AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > This Draft Policy is fair, impartial, and technically sound. This draft > policy replaces language identified as problematic by ARIN staff via the > Policy Experience Report WG with a proper definition to keep the NRPM > focused on numbers policy. > > Problem Statement: > > The January 2020 Policy Experience Report highlighted that the existing > language in Section 4.2.1.2 ?Annual Renewal? references fees. Fees are not > considered a member qualification criteria. Since fees aren?t referenced > elsewhere in community policy, the wording was reviewed by the PEG. > > Policy Statement: > > Given that the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) already contains > language regarding fees, the AC Shepherds recommend to eliminate 4.2.1.2. > entirely and add: > > 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > > Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are > subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource holder. > Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or > future, are simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement (RSA). > > Comments: > > The AC?s understanding is that community policy should not include > language referring to fees, as such language is already present in the > Registration Services Agreement (RSA) > > Registration Services has informed us that ?Section 4.2.1.2. contains > language detailing fee due dates, encouraging on-time payments, and > mentions potential revocations. It also contains a reference to web > documentation that has evolved significantly since this policy was > implemented, and may continue to do so. Essentially the entire section is > made of language that is already in the Registration Services Agreement, > and is generally fee-focused, making it outside normal scope for Internet > number resource policy.? > > Timetable for Implementation: Immediate > > Anything Else: Community input since adopting draft has informed this > direction. The 2.X placeholder is used as this seems like it might be > foundational enough to not be 2.17 but the Shepherds would rather not upset > current indexing arbitrarily. > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Apr 20 17:44:23 2021 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 17:44:23 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification In-Reply-To: <592C7230-4061-4F8E-9EEF-DD79BA600FE7@semihuman.com> References: <592C7230-4061-4F8E-9EEF-DD79BA600FE7@semihuman.com> Message-ID: Interesting. I agree with you. The intention of the word "new" was for the "new" flavor of gTLD. The ones that were (and some continue to feel still are) anathemas and underwrote a trend of monetizing critical infrastructure. .COM was first but not considered new. Think .CLUB. The idea was that DNS was a commons and everyone ought to be on a level playing field. Today that is a mistake. If removing "new" means we open 4.4 to .COM and .NET (for example), then this is more than an editorial change. If it simply is an acknowledgement that the gTLD is a mature concept and normalizes the language, it is an easy change. The overall gTLD should probably NOT be using 4.4. This pool has slowly morphed into uses that while "technically" valid, are well outside of intended use and in many cases are actually amusing to the trained eye. See Bahamas IX. Warm regards, -M< On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:57 PM Chris Woodfield wrote: > I?d argue that this is not editorial, in that the use of the term ?new? at > the time was intended to exclude the existing gTLDs from eligibility, where > the proposed language does not. That said, I support as written. > > Thanks, > > -C > > > On Apr 20, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > > IMO this is editorial, but either way I support the clarification. > > -Scott > > > > > ---------- > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:43 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 15 April 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) sent the following > Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: > > > > * ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification > > > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last Call will expire on 4 May > 2021. > > > > The Recommended Draft Policy text is below and available at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_7/ > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > > > Regards, > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Senior Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation > Clarification > > > > AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > > > The draft Policy ARIN-2020-7 is fair, impartial ,technically sound and > supported by the community. This draft policy removes ?new? from ?new GTLD? > in NRPM Section 4.4 in an effort to reduce confusion for those who may view > the policy itself as ?new? when it is from 2012. > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > As stated in NRPM section 4.4: Micro-allocation > > > > ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an > IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool > or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. > > > > The term ?new gTLD? is confusing and refers to all gTLD?s that have been > created since June of 2012. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an > IPv4 /23 block for each authorized gTLD, allocated from the free pool or > received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. > > > > Comments: > > > > This proposal stems from a suggestion in the January, 2019 Policy > Experience Report. > > > > Timetable for Implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: