<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On Jul 3, 2015, at 6:04 PM, Tony Hain <<a href="mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net" class="">alh-ietf@tndh.net</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">[TH] I believe the rest of what I said and this paragraph are in violent agreement, but defining who ARIN provides service to is not the point of this proposed text; by content or title. This document is trying to scope where resources get used,
not who is allowed to do business with ARIN. <br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
There’s fairly long history regarding the “out of region” proposals, and that makes it important</div>
<div>to consider this proposal in context. As I noted, the policy proposals have been all striving to</div>
<div>provide greater clarity on whom ARIN serves and under what (if any) conditions. Note that the </div>
<div>condition that the party indicate that they’ll make some use of the resources in region (effectively, </div>
<div>that they will route the aggregate in region) is part of existing practice. See the Policy Experience</div>
<div>report <<a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf" class="">https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf</a>></div>
<div>for more details.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>So, you are correct in that the proposal is "trying to scope where resources get used” but that is </div>
<div>solely because the existing practice asks requestors to indicate that they will use the resources </div>
<div>in region as noted above. Depending on the community’s wish, this requirement may be clarified, </div>
<div>strengthened, or dropped altogether.</div>
<div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">[TH] I can certainly understand wanting to have clarity (legal or otherwise) about who is allowed to be a customer, but as I read it, that is not what this proposal is about. If the requesting ISP from Mars didn't have, or couldn't do business
with their local RIR for some reason, it would be useful to have a policy that allowed at least one of the RIR's to provide service.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
If the had a legal presence in ARIN’s service region, and indicated that they were going to route the </div>
<div>resources in region, we could satisfy their request (although I do hope that they are requesting IPv6 </div>
<div>resources, since we seem to be a little dry on IPV4 at present…) We have many multinationals </div>
<div>organizations who have IPv4 and IPv6 resources from ARIN and who use them for their global </div>
<div>networks; there’s no reason that we can’t serve interplanetary organizations under the present</div>
<div>policy, so long as they have a legal presence and intend to use the resources in region...</div>
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">In any case, once the resources were allocated and registered, where they are used is outside</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">the scope of the registrar's jurisdiction, as they were and continue to be a global (universal)
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">resource. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Correct. Once issued, actual usage is entirely up to the resource holder.</div>
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">At the end of the day, allowing ill-thought-out policy adjustments to 'manage' the IPv4 address
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">pool will do nothing except endanger the ability to properly manage the IPv6 pool. All IPv4 policy
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">changes should be limited to recognizing that the free-pool is exhausted, and otherwise stop.</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div>Tony - your admonishment is taken in good spirit, but you should observe that there is a bit </div>
<div>of existing policy and practice that has accumulated over time with respect to IPv4 resource</div>
<div>administration. Some of this policy is “linked”, e.g. it is quite possible today that policy that </div>
<div>was designed for proper allocation of new IPv4 resources from the free pool will be applicable </div>
<div>in some manner to processing a transfer request for IPv4 today, despite free pool runout… </div>
<div>Ergo, there are likely to still be quite a few policy proposals to change IPv4 policy, and will be </div>
<div>particularly important to consider if they improve administration of number resources compared </div>
<div>to the present situation rather than considering them in isolation.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>John Curran </div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>