<p dir="ltr">I am in support of draft 2014-4.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Rudi Daniel <br>
(information technologist)<br>
784 430 9235</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 6, 2014 4:11 PM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation<br>
Conservation Update (John Springer)<br>
2. Re: support for 2014-1 (out of region use) (David Huberman)<br>
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY<br>
(John Springer)<br>
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation<br>
Conservation Update (Michael Still)<br>
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY<br>
(John Springer)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:26:35 -0800 (PST)<br>
From: John Springer <<a href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com">springer@inlandnet.com</a>><br>
To: David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:alpine.BSF.2.00.1402060904340.72878@mail.inlandnet.com">alpine.BSF.2.00.1402060904340.72878@mail.inlandnet.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Comments inline.<br>
<br>
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:<br>
>> Hello,<br>
>><br>
>> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in<br>
>> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if you<br>
>> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> Andrew<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from<br>
>> 2 to 3?<br>
><br>
> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant standard<br>
> to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).<br>
><br>
> To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for an<br>
> IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also extremely<br>
> low. However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4 free pool<br>
> the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the standard to<br>
> three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent precaution to<br>
> ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical infrastructure that<br>
> was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure availability of resources for<br>
> legitimate IXPs in the future.<br>
><br>
> There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is unfortunate.<br>
> However, the three participant standard is not completely unreasonable, given<br>
> the potential for increased abuse of the two participant standard.<br>
<br>
The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject.<br>
Perhaps the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on<br>
this specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as<br>
the way forward. I am OK with that.<br>
<br>
>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define<br>
>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?<br>
><br>
> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue<br>
> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue. I<br>
> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments<br>
> section, outside the policy text itself. I support the general concept it<br>
> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.<br>
<br>
many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a<br>
direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not<br>
support the draft policy as written.<br>
<br>
John Springer<br>
<br>
<br>
> Thanks.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ================================================<br>
> David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
> Office of Information Technology<br>
> University of Minnesota<br>
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815">1-612-626-0815</a><br>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952">1-612-812-9952</a><br>
> ================================================<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:40:55 +0000<br>
From: David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
To: "ARIN PPML (<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>)" <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:0a573e7e5ec24a34bba99c20501e6e5f@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com">0a573e7e5ec24a34bba99c20501e6e5f@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Thank you, Milton, for bringing this thread up.<br>
<br>
I've reviewed 2014-1 and thought about it carefully. I am against this proposal. I'll try and organize my thoughts, though they come from a few different angles.<br>
<br>
Text: <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html</a><br>
<br>
1) I'm against the specific 2014-1 language because I think it is almost entirely no-op.<br>
<br>
In general, I want NRPM to be brief, concise, and prescriptive. "You qualify by doing X. You don't qualify because of Y. You must show A, B, C." We need less fluffy text in NRPM so that it is a more accessible and polished Policy document, imho. In this case, only paragraph X.1 is operational. It formally lays out just a few steps that ARIN already has available to it. But these aren't the only tools ARIN has to verify request data, and I'm not convinced that having these specific bullet points in Policy helps the community or ARIN staff in any meaningful way.<br>
<br>
Put more straight forwardly: ARIN staff already have these mechanisms available to them, and this policy text will not change the request process materially.<br>
<br>
2) The PPML community has reviewed similar proposals twice, in my recollection. There was a draft limiting out-of-region use discussed in Philadelphia. The community vocally was against it, and clearly told ARIN staff to keep doing what they were already doing. There was also a draft limiting out-of-region use discussed in Phoenix. The community was again vocally against it, and clearly told the ARIN staff that this isn't a policy area they wish to discuss.<br>
<br>
3) At the same time, the staff are continuing to report that there are significant problems from out-of-region requestors abusing the policies. If you disagree with the PPML community (and I do - I think this is a serious issue that cries for Policy changes), then we need to draft text that significantly and materially helps ARIN staff fight fraud from out-of-region requestors.<br>
<br>
With regards,<br>
David<br>
<br>
David R Huberman<br>
Microsoft Corporation<br>
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller<br>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:42 AM<br>
To: ARIN PPML (<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>)<br>
Subject: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)<br>
<br>
Draft policy 2014-1 attempts to solve a problem left over from last year. During 2013 there was a round of policy proposals attempting to tie ARIN allocations more closely to usage in the region. They failed to gain consensus because they would have interfered with trans-regional networks in undesirable ways. Yet, current policy is still ambiguous on the issue of out of region use of ARIN registered resources. This proposal attempts to clear up that ambiguity in a way that avoids harmful effects on transnational or trans-regional network operators. The gist of the idea is to allow out of region use for organizations eligible for ARIN resources, but also provide policy authorization for ARIN to charge fees to verify the identity or usage of applicants outside the region. I think this approach provides the most flexibility while addressing the only real problems that have been cited for out of region use (verification issues).<br>
<br>
You can see the proposal in full here: <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html</a><br>
Appreciate reading your comments about this.<br>
<br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller<br>
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
Internet Governance Project<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:27:59 -0800 (PST)<br>
From: John Springer <<a href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com">springer@inlandnet.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB<br>
HOSTING POLICY<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:alpine.BSF.2.00.1402060932140.72878@mail.inlandnet.com">alpine.BSF.2.00.1402060932140.72878@mail.inlandnet.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII<br>
<br>
Greetings PPML readers,<br>
<br>
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be<br>
discussed next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in<br>
Atlanta. This Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to<br>
13:00PM in the Augusta Room.<br>
<br>
Comments are invited and welcome both here and there. The text of<br>
the Draft Policy is below my comments, which follow.<br>
<br>
Comments (and questions) from me:<br>
<br>
Firstly, do you support or oppose Draft Policy 2014-4?<br>
<br>
This Draft Policy is functionally identical to the last bullet item of<br>
Draft Policy 2013-7 - NRPM 4 (IPv4) policy cleanup, which also will be<br>
presented next week. The author of this Draft Policy is aware of this<br>
overlap and "would like it submitted and considered entirely separately".<br>
One aspect of this situation is that the precursors of 2013-7 have<br>
attracted energetic comment. Adoption of 2014-4 separately would decouple<br>
this issue (2014-4) from the other parts of 2013-7 and its adoption or<br>
rejection. What do you think?<br>
<br>
While the policy text of both proposals is functionally identical ("Remove<br>
section 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" in 2013-7 and "Remove section 4.2.5" in<br>
2014-4), the problem statements differ. 2013-7 says, "Since ARIN received<br>
its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, this is now a<br>
distinction without a difference." 2014-4 says "Section 4.2.5 is<br>
technology-specific language that is not current with modern network<br>
operation needs and practices. We should remove it to make NRPM clearer."<br>
Both appear to be correct and sufficient. Which do you prefer and why? If<br>
neither, and you support 2014-4, can you please suggest text? Since both<br>
are Draft Policy, an opportunity exists for the AC to amend the problem<br>
statements so the two are congruent.<br>
<br>
It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational<br>
impact, being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what<br>
operational relevance do you see?<br>
<br>
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.<br>
<br>
John Springer<br>
<br>
From: ARIN (info at <a href="http://arin.net" target="_blank">arin.net</a>)<br>
Date: Wed Jan 29 10:26:51 EST 2014<br>
<br>
On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted<br>
"ARIN-prop-196 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" as a Draft Policy.<br>
<br>
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 is below and can be found at:<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html</a><br>
<br>
You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft<br>
Policy 2014-4 on the Public Policy Mailing List.<br>
<br>
The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance<br>
of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource<br>
Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:<br>
<br>
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration<br>
* Technically Sound<br>
* Supported by the Community<br>
<br>
The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html</a><br>
<br>
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Communications and Member Services<br>
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
<br>
<br>
## * ##<br>
<br>
<br>
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4<br>
Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy<br>
<br>
Date: 29 January 2014<br>
<br>
Problem Statement:<br>
<br>
Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific language that is not current with<br>
modern network operation needs and practices. We should remove it to<br>
make NRPM clearer.<br>
<br>
Policy statement:<br>
<br>
Remove section 4.2.5.<br>
<br>
Comments:<br>
a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
b.Anything else:<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:45:12 -0500<br>
From: Michael Still <<a href="mailto:stillwaxin@gmail.com">stillwaxin@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: John Springer <<a href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com">springer@inlandnet.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAPDTRigg96qkZAVPTM-rnjuoyoXN27qWQzijVUoeAGF%2BwZSyKQ@mail.gmail.com">CAPDTRigg96qkZAVPTM-rnjuoyoXN27qWQzijVUoeAGF+wZSyKQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer <<a href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com">springer@inlandnet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Comments inline.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hello,<br>
>>><br>
>>> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in<br>
>>> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if you<br>
>>> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>> Andrew<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from<br>
>>> 2 to 3?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant<br>
>> standard to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).<br>
>><br>
>> To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for<br>
>> an IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also<br>
>> extremely low. However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4<br>
>> free pool the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the<br>
>> standard to three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent<br>
>> precaution to ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical<br>
>> infrastructure that was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure<br>
>> availability of resources for legitimate IXPs in the future.<br>
>><br>
>> There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is<br>
>> unfortunate. However, the three participant standard is not completely<br>
>> unreasonable, given the potential for increased abuse of the two participant<br>
>> standard.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject. Perhaps<br>
> the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on this<br>
> specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as the way<br>
> forward. I am OK with that.<br>
><br>
><br>
>>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define<br>
>>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue<br>
>> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue. I<br>
>> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments<br>
>> section, outside the policy text itself. I support the general concept it<br>
>> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.<br>
><br>
><br>
> many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a<br>
> direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not<br>
> support the draft policy as written.<br>
><br>
> John Springer<br>
><br>
<br>
Not really responding to you, you just happened to be the last in the thread..<br>
<br>
Perhaps we should look at tackling some of our dwindling number<br>
resources issues in a different perspective. Have we considered<br>
updating the policy to only issue prefix sizes which are reasonable in<br>
the first place? What makes just setting up an IXP be enough to issue<br>
a /24? What if this IXP is in a market in which there will never be<br>
more than 126 participants? Or worse much less? Should these IXPs be<br>
given /24s when a much smaller allocation may be all that's needed?<br>
Or should every IXP have to start small and as their participation<br>
increases they be issued new space to move into?<br>
<br>
I believe the argument for global prefix visibility of IXP space has<br>
been largely discussed and consensus is that this space does not and<br>
should not be globally reachable voiding any perceived need for a /24<br>
I believe.<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Thanks.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> ================================================<br>
>> David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
>> Office of Information Technology<br>
>> University of Minnesota<br>
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815">1-612-626-0815</a><br>
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952">1-612-812-9952</a><br>
>> ================================================<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
[<a href="mailto:stillwaxin@gmail.com">stillwaxin@gmail.com</a> ~]$ cat .signature<br>
cat: .signature: No such file or directory<br>
[<a href="mailto:stillwaxin@gmail.com">stillwaxin@gmail.com</a> ~]$<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:08:30 -0800 (PST)<br>
From: John Springer <<a href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com">springer@inlandnet.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB<br>
HOSTING POLICY<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:alpine.BSF.2.00.1402061206110.72878@mail.inlandnet.com">alpine.BSF.2.00.1402061206110.72878@mail.inlandnet.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Correction:<br>
<br>
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, John Springer wrote:<br>
<br>
> Greetings PPML readers,<br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be discussed<br>
> next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. This<br>
> Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to 13:00PM in the Augusta<br>
> Room.<br>
><br>
> Comments are invited and welcome both here and there. The text of the Draft<br>
> Policy is below my comments, which follow.<br>
><br>
> Comments (and questions) from me:<br>
><br>
> Firstly, do you support or oppose Draft Policy 2014-4?<br>
><br>
> This Draft Policy is functionally identical to the last bullet item of Draft<br>
> Policy 2013-7 - NRPM 4 (IPv4) policy cleanup, which also will be presented<br>
> next week. The author of this Draft Policy is aware of this overlap and<br>
> "would like it submitted and considered entirely separately". One aspect of<br>
> this situation is that the precursors of 2013-7 have attracted energetic<br>
> comment. Adoption of 2014-4 separately would decouple this issue (2014-4)<br>
> from the other parts of 2013-7 and its adoption or rejection. What do you<br>
> think?<br>
><br>
> While the policy text of both proposals is functionally identical ("Remove<br>
> section 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" in 2013-7 and "Remove section 4.2.5" in<br>
> 2014-4), the problem statements differ. 2013-7 says, "Since ARIN received its<br>
> last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, this is now a distinction<br>
> without a difference."<br>
<br>
The correct problem statement for 2013-7 is "This information-gathering<br>
policy has been in place for a decade now with no resulting policy<br>
changes, and is no longer needed in light of IPv4 runout."<br>
<br>
> 2014-4 says "Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific<br>
> language that is not current with modern network operation needs and<br>
> practices. We should remove it to make NRPM clearer." Both appear to be<br>
> correct and sufficient. Which do you prefer and why? If neither, and you<br>
> support 2014-4, can you please suggest text? Since both are Draft Policy, an<br>
> opportunity exists for the AC to amend the problem statements so the two are<br>
> congruent.<br>
><br>
> It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational impact,<br>
> being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what operational<br>
> relevance do you see?<br>
><br>
> Thank you for your consideration of this matter.<br>
><br>
> John Springer<br>
><br>
> From: ARIN (info at <a href="http://arin.net" target="_blank">arin.net</a>)<br>
> Date: Wed Jan 29 10:26:51 EST 2014<br>
><br>
> On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted<br>
> "ARIN-prop-196 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" as a Draft Policy.<br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 is below and can be found at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html</a><br>
><br>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft<br>
> Policy 2014-4 on the Public Policy Mailing List.<br>
><br>
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance<br>
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource<br>
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:<br>
><br>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration<br>
> * Technically Sound<br>
> * Supported by the Community<br>
><br>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html</a><br>
><br>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html</a><br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Communications and Member Services<br>
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ## * ##<br>
><br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4<br>
> Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy<br>
><br>
> Date: 29 January 2014<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific language that is not current with<br>
> modern network operation needs and practices. We should remove it to<br>
> make NRPM clearer.<br>
><br>
> Policy statement:<br>
><br>
> Remove section 4.2.5.<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
> b.Anything else:<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3<br>
*****************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>