Steve, I believe this policy would focus on the 'next' allocation...the one currently being requested from ARIN. A plurality for that one. bd
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Steven Ryerse <srye...@eclipse-networks.com > wrote: > The problem here of course is there could be a legitimate international > organization with over 50% of their network say in Asia and only say 2% in > the US. As long as the resources are going to be used in the ARIN region > it is reasonable that they should be allocated resources from ARIN. So > majority or plurality doesn't work and there will always be a scenario that > is legitimate but that doesn't fit into a contrived policy. > > I don't believe ARIN can NOT allocate resources solely because more than > 50% of existing resources reside in other regions. This is an example of > trying to use policy to NOT allocate resources and of course ARIN's mission > is TO allocate resources. The best that could be done by policy is to > require they use them within the ARIN region. I'm not sure if ARIN really > wants to get into the policing business after resources have been > allocated, but that is the only recourse if an org lies in their allocation > request. > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:07 PM > To: William Herrin > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 > andIPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised Problem > Statementand Policy Text > > On 9/15/13 13:18 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:53 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > >>> The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN > >>> addresses in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule > >>> doesn't do that. It does, however, create a new and potentially > >>> onerous documentary burden on every registrant requesting addresses. > >> > >> With all due respect, if that's the intent, then I oppose the policy. > > > > Hi Owen, > > > > My paragraph above is in error. Terri clarified the intent of the > > draft several messages ago. > > > > Paraphrasing: the authors want better public records so they know who > > to go to or go after when there is a law enforcement issue. And they'd > > like that to be someone within their respective jurisdictions. They > > would have us tighten eligibility to those folks with some kind of > > substantive legal presence in the region. Something more than "We've > > registered a Delaware LLC and park IP addresses on rented equipment in > > a rented data center." > > > > Based on her clarification, I'd drop the language which seeks to have > > the number resources employed in-region. That muddies the issue and > > makes consensus harder than it needs to be. The issue is not where the > > IP addresses are used, but whether the registrant can be compelled to > > cooperate with local law enforcement and adhere to local law. > > The intent of requiring a plurality or a minimum percentage is not to keep > resources within the region, but along with the other requirements of a > legal presence and operating a network in region, the intent is to ensure > all organizations receiving resources from ARIN actually have a real > presence within the ARIN region, be that a network with a footprint wholly > contained within the region, a network with a global footprint based in the > ARIN region, or the in-region need of a global network, based any where. > Requiring a minimum percentage of resource be justified from within the > region adds another level of assurance that an organization has such a real > presence within the ARIN region. > > Without some minimum for justification within the ARIN region it would be > theoretically possible for an organization to have a legal presence and > operational network within region, and get resources from ARIN and use > 0.001% within the region 99.999% outside the region, that just doesn't pass > a smell test for me. That sounds more like they are operating a network > with a global footprint that is really based out of another region, than > based in the ARIN region. > > I think we want to allow organizations with a global network based in the > region to get resources from ARIN if they wish. Some organizations may > want to get resources from other RIRs, or all 5. Others organizations may > find it easier to get resources from some other RIRs (those near the > minimum), and a few may need to by policy (those with less than the > minimum). But, the vast majority of organizations shouldn't have to get > resources from other RIRs unless they want to. > > >>> More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have > >>> to keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE > >>> region and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have > >>> 30% in the APNIC region in which case I need 31% in the ARIN region, > >>> but if that drops the RIPE region down to 27% I can reduce the ARIN > >>> region holdings to 28%. > >> > >> I suppose you can make it sound complex like that, but, in reality, > >> it's much simpler… You need to make sure that more of your operations > >> using ARIN space are in the ARIN region than anywhere else. > > As I said in my response to Matt, I think we could simplify things by > going with a minimum percentage rather than a plurality. But I agree with > Owen a plurality really isn't that complicated. A minimum percentage would > probably water down the requirement more that some people want. But if we > can find consensus around a simple percentage then lets use that. I'm > suggesting 20%, 25% or 30%, but I'd like to know what others think. > > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: > 1-612-812-9952================================================ > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.