<p dir="ltr">I support this policy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Rudi Daniel<br>
ICT consulting</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 24, 2014 1:24 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. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation<br>
Based on Past Utilization (ARIN)<br>
2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use<br>
(William Herrin)<br>
3. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization<br>
Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate (William Herrin)<br>
4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use<br>
(Martin Hannigan)<br>
5. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Randy Carpenter)<br>
6. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Seth Mattinen)<br>
7. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use<br>
(Andrew Dul)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:21:48 -0500<br>
From: ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN<br>
Allocation Based on Past Utilization<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:549AE81C.3000305@arin.net">549AE81C.3000305@arin.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19<br>
New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization<br>
<br>
On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended<br>
ARIN-2014-19 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.<br>
<br>
ARIN-2014-19 is below and can be found at:<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html</a><br>
<br>
You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-19 on the PPML prior to<br>
the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio<br>
in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting<br>
will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community<br>
consensus for adopting this as policy.<br>
<br>
The ARIN Policy Development Process 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>
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19<br>
New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization<br>
<br>
Date: 16 December 2014<br>
<br>
AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number<br>
Resource Policy:<br>
<br>
This draft policy enables fair and impartial number resource<br>
administration by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen<br>
by some organizations due to the recent policy changes under<br>
ARIN-2013-08. This draft policy applies equally to all organizations and<br>
allows for MDN organizations to use previous utilization of a site to<br>
justify a new allocation for an MDN network site. The policy is clear<br>
and implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There<br>
are no technical issues which are raised by allowing a new criteria set<br>
to justify a new MDN network allocation. This proposal is supported by<br>
the community. Specifically, the draft policy is supported by<br>
organizations which use the MDN policy for their network allocation.<br>
<br>
Problem Statement:<br>
The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only<br>
qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the<br>
minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more<br>
can be demonstrated.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some<br>
cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable<br>
to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four<br>
regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20<br>
per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over<br>
80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in<br>
half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be<br>
migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of<br>
Region 4's growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and Region<br>
5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations at half<br>
of what was Region 4's growth rate.<br>
<br>
Policy statement:<br>
<br>
replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:<br>
<br>
Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of deployment<br>
of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be allocated<br>
the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the<br>
organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need<br>
criteria (4.2.1.6).<br>
<br>
with:<br>
<br>
Upon verification that the organization has shown<br>
<br>
evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new<br>
network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:<br>
<br>
- the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5<br>
<br>
- more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional<br>
need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)<br>
<br>
- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can<br>
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.<br>
<br>
Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
<br>
Comment:<br>
<br>
The third bullet was changed from:<br>
<br>
"- a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization<br>
rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base<br>
a three month supply on as per 4.2."<br>
<br>
to:<br>
<br>
"- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can<br>
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history."<br>
<br>
#####<br>
<br>
ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT<br>
<br>
Date of Assessment: 22 October 2014<br>
<br>
1. Summary (Staff Understanding)<br>
<br>
This policy proposes to change existing NRPM 4.5, ???Multiple Discrete<br>
Networks??? bullet 7 to add an additional qualifying criteria. Currently<br>
new sites applying under MDN will qualify for the minimum allocation<br>
size specified in 4.2.1.5 or under immediate need. This proposal adds<br>
the option for new MDNs with at least a year???s worth of historical<br>
utilization data to request up to a 3 month supply of addresses.<br>
<br>
2. Comments<br>
<br>
A. ARIN Staff Comments<br>
<br>
?? If implemented, staff would require the organization to show a direct<br>
correlation between the demonstrated 1-year utilization rate and the new<br>
discrete network???s 3 month need.<br>
<br>
?? The policy requires an ???applicable 1 year utilization rate??? in<br>
order to qualify under this criteria. If implemented, staff would<br>
require that there be at least a full year of utilization data in order<br>
to qualify for a 3-month supply of address space.<br>
<br>
?? The stated criterion is unclear. Staff would suggest restating as<br>
follows:<br>
<br>
o A 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can<br>
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.<br>
<br>
B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment<br>
<br>
This proposal does not create any material legal issue.<br>
<br>
3. Resource Impact<br>
<br>
This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation<br>
aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months<br>
after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be<br>
needed in order to implement:<br>
?? Updated guidelines and internal procedures<br>
?? Staff training<br>
<br>
4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed<br>
Date: 3 September 2014<br>
Problem Statement:<br>
The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only<br>
qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the<br>
minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more<br>
can be demonstrated.<br>
Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some<br>
cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable<br>
to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four<br>
regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20<br>
per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over<br>
80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in<br>
half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be<br>
migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of<br>
Region 4???s growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and<br>
Region 5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations<br>
at half of what was Region 4???s growth rate.<br>
Policy statement:<br>
replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:<br>
???Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of<br>
deployment of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be<br>
allocated the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the<br>
organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need<br>
criteria (4.2.1.6).???<br>
with:<br>
Upon verification that the organization has shown<br>
evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new<br>
network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:<br>
- the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5<br>
- more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional<br>
need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)<br>
- a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization<br>
rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base<br>
a three month supply on as per 4.2.<br>
Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:50:42 -0500<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of<br>
Region Use<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com">CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Policy statement:<br>
><br>
> Create new Section X:<br>
><br>
> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out<br>
> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional<br>
> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent<br>
> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,<br>
> respectively.<br>
><br>
> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that<br>
> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests<br>
> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by<br>
> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the<br>
> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been<br>
> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN<br>
> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number<br>
> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when<br>
> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.<br>
<br>
I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by<br>
large multinational companies who really don't need yet another<br>
advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN<br>
a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough<br>
in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my<br>
OPPOSITION to this draft policy.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:54:48 -0500<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change<br>
Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAP-guGUQSodsqB6RQSvPnjdMkq_S0xU1f32nMCWtjcmZnHOg9g@mail.gmail.com">CAP-guGUQSodsqB6RQSvPnjdMkq_S0xU1f32nMCWtjcmZnHOg9g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Policy statement:<br>
><br>
> Replace Section 4.2.4.1<br>
><br>
> ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at<br>
> least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive<br>
> additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.<br>
><br>
> Replace Section 4.3.6.1<br>
><br>
> End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, to<br>
> at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive<br>
> additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.<br>
<br>
I SUPPORT this draft policy as written. I believe it resolves an<br>
ambiguity in ARIN policy regarding utilization of assigned blocks<br>
prior to the most recent in a reasonable and even-handed manner.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:03:10 -0500<br>
From: Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of<br>
Region Use<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:75E5775E-F26A-4722-B137-AA8611211E00@gmail.com">75E5775E-F26A-4722-B137-AA8611211E00@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
If Ebola were a draft policy it would be this one. Not in favor.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Policy statement:<br>
>><br>
>> Create new Section X:<br>
>><br>
>> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out<br>
>> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional<br>
>> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent<br>
>> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,<br>
>> respectively.<br>
>><br>
>> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that<br>
>> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests<br>
>> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by<br>
>> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the<br>
>> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been<br>
>> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN<br>
>> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number<br>
>> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when<br>
>> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.<br>
><br>
> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by<br>
> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another<br>
> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN<br>
> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough<br>
> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my<br>
> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Bill Herrin<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?<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>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:05:33 -0500 (EST)<br>
From: Randy Carpenter <<a href="mailto:rcarpen@network1.net">rcarpen@network1.net</a>><br>
To: John Santos <<a href="mailto:JOHN@egh.com">JOHN@egh.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:1073838686.613482.1419440733010.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net">1073838686.613482.1419440733010.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
<br>
I also oppose. John Santos sums up the big points with which I agree:<br>
<br>
----- On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:00 AM, John Santos <a href="mailto:JOHN@egh.com">JOHN@egh.com</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Oppose 2014-14<br>
><br>
> 1) /16 is not "small"<br>
<br>
Agreed. Even by ARIN definition it is "medium" :-)<br>
<br>
> 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been<br>
> demonstrated. "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs<br>
> testing of small transfers." Obviously, doing the necessary checking<br>
> requires staff time, but is it a significant amount? Is it taking much<br>
> longer than it used to? Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff<br>
> wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?<br>
<br>
I have not heard or seen any data to support the "ARIN staff is too burdened" argument, other than there being a slightly longer processing time for IPv4 requests, which I am completely fine with. IPv6 requests have been pretty speedy for me.<br>
<br>
-Randy<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:20:17 -0800<br>
From: Seth Mattinen <<a href="mailto:sethm@rollernet.us">sethm@rollernet.us</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:549AF5D1.9080306@rollernet.us">549AF5D1.9080306@rollernet.us</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 12/23/14 22:00, John Santos wrote:<br>
> 1) /16 is not "small"<br>
<br>
<br>
Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".<br>
<br>
~Seth<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:23:58 -0800<br>
From: Andrew Dul <<a href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of<br>
Region Use<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:549AF6AE.7000807@quark.net">549AF6AE.7000807@quark.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
Marty,<br>
<br>
Can you be a little more specific. Are you opposed to the whole concept<br>
or the draft as written?<br>
<br>
Do you support the ARIN's current operational practice of excluding<br>
address space, which is in use outside the region, from being considered<br>
utilized when applying for additional allocations?<br>
<br>
This was one of the things this policy was attempting to rectify.<br>
<br>
I know you support removing all needs requirements, but that isn't the<br>
current policy in this region.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 12/24/2014 9:03 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:<br>
> If Ebola were a draft policy it would be this one. Not in favor.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Policy statement:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Create new Section X:<br>
>>><br>
>>> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out<br>
>>> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional<br>
>>> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent<br>
>>> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,<br>
>>> respectively.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that<br>
>>> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests<br>
>>> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by<br>
>>> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the<br>
>>> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been<br>
>>> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN<br>
>>> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number<br>
>>> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when<br>
>>> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.<br>
>> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by<br>
>> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another<br>
>> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN<br>
>> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough<br>
>> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my<br>
>> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Bill Herrin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> William Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <<a href="http://www.dirtside.com/" target="_blank">http://www.dirtside.com/</a>><br>
>> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?<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>
> 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>
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 114, Issue 50<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>