<div dir="ltr">David, Kevin, Alison<div><br></div><div>I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of revocation, </div><div>but I am still not comfortable with "should". </div><div><br></div><div>Should makes it optional. Officially not being out of compliance with</div><div>ARIN policy makes it optional. </div><div><br></div><div>I suggest that an ISP refusing to register a downstream customer</div><div>is out of compliance with ARIN policy, and not just choosing to ignore </div><div>an optional recommendation.</div><div><br></div><div>If it is only "should" then an ISP can still hold the moral high ground</div><div>while refusing to support SWIP on the grounds that they will not</div><div>implement tooling and commit resources when it is only optional.</div><div><br></div><div>It is a question of if you can hold someone accountable for not</div><div>complying or if they are free to ignore something that is optional.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Owen, Chris, Kevin,</div><div><br></div><div>Certainly if there is enough support to move this forward, we shouldn't</div><div>wait another cycle. (I recognize this weakens the "shall" position)</div><div><br></div><div>My hope is if we can close out the discussion of this topic at the meeting </div><div>with a clear understanding of if there is community support to move forward</div><div>the policy with "shall" and also if there is clear support to move the policy forward</div><div>with "should" in this cycle. This will give the AC a maximum of leverage to do </div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">what is needed, and insure it doesn't fall to the next cycle by forcing people</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">to support only what they </span>perceive<span style="font-size:12.48px"> as the best option.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">Assuming there is support for both "shall" and "should" the AC could </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">choose to move "shall" to last call, and if there are then issues, move</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">should to last call. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">We need to get clear on how to structure the question here.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">My thoughts are </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">1. Do you support the policy with "shall" if </span><span style="font-size:12.48px">it doesn't require an extra cycle</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"> and support "should" in this cycle if "shall" cannot advance?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">2. Do you only support the policy as written?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">3. Do you oppose both the policy as written and with "shall"?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">When considering if there is enough support to move the policy as </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">written forward, the AC should consider the hands in both questions 1 & 2.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px">I </span>support the policy with "shall" with a fall back to "should".</div><div><span style="font-size:12.48px"><br></span></div><div>__Jason</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:18 PM, David Farmer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I agree with Kevin if a bigger stick is need to ensure compliance in the future we can take that step if/when there proves to be a serious non-compliance issue in the future. Personally, I'm not ready to threaten revocation, in this case. My intent in suggesting what is now 6.5.5.4 was to crate an avenue for ARIN Staff to intervene with ISPs on behalf of customers, if a customer wanted their assignment registered and their ISP refused to register their assignment as requested, the customer can appeal the issue to ARIN. I'm fine with that intervention being short of threatening revocation, at least until their proves to be a serious issue with ISP's refusing valid requests by endusers to register assignments. I think the current language provides the proper balance.<div><br></div><div>I'm fine with the standard procedure starting with ARIN Staff forwarding such complaints to an ISP requesting an explanation of the situation. However, if this develops into a chronic matter for an ISP, I would expect ARIN Staff to escalate the issue beyond simply asking for an explanation. Further after escalation, if the matter continues to be chronic, I would expect eventually the community to be altered to the situation. Probably not the specifics of which ISP and customers, but at least that there is an issue and some sense of the situation involved. </div><div><div><br></div><div>Therefore, I support the policy as written. I'm not strongly opposed to changing from "should" to "shall" for section 6.5.5.4, but I'd prefer keeping that change in reserve, so we can go there, if there proves to be serious issues with non-compliance in the future. Put another way, I think voluntary compliance is highly preferred for this issue, and if voluntary compliance proves insufficient, then we can deal with that in the future. </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevinb@thewire.ca" target="_blank">kevinb@thewire.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div lang="EN-CA">
<div class="m_2086653384843287505gmail-m_-3868886150614529843WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_2086653384843287505_m_-3868886150614529843__MailEndCompose"><span>I support the policy as written.
<u></u><u></u></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>If the stick isn’t big enough it appears a simple policy change could be used, not just for this section but all the other areas “should” is used.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>I would like to point out that “should” is currently used 30 times in the NRPM.
<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>In reading John’s explanation, I can’t see “should” and “shall” being considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another meeting would
be far worse.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this, where the other party ignored you?<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kevin Blumberg<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<span></span>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> ARIN-PPML [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml-bounces@arin<wbr>.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Curran<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">I oppose as written.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">There should not be a different standard of requirement for:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">- re-allocation<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">- reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">- subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">which is "shall"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">and Registration Requested by Recipient<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">which is "should"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">I would support if they are both "shall".<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">down stream customer contacts them and explains that their<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">them they "should" SWIP it?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jason - <br>
<br>
If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has IPv6 space from ARIN <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or larger reassignments) <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that would enable <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a timely manner. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing basis will be <br>
in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their obligations to follow <br>
ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> of the IPv6 number resources.)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient” <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> reads “… the ISP should register that assignment”, then ARIN would send on any<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they should<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking any action. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient” <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> reads “… the ISP shall register that assignment”, then failure to do so would be<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, could have <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to comply with <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation of <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> the IPv6 number resources.)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I would note that the community should be very clear about its intentions for ISPs<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given there is large <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. ARIN staff remains, <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges from the <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> consensus-based policy development process. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks!<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">/John<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John Curran<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">President and CEO<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">American Registry for Internet Numbers<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_2086653384843287505gmail_signature">==============================<wbr>=================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br><a href="https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g">2218 University Ave SE</a> Phone: <a href="tel:(612)%20626-0815" value="+16126260815" target="_blank">612-626-0815</a><br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:(612)%20812-9952" value="+16128129952" target="_blank">612-812-9952</a><br>==============================<wbr>================= <br></div>
</font></span></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div>
</div>