On 10/22/2014 12:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message-----
"ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's
number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use"
I feel it should be eliminated. As it was mentioned at the microphone
in the Baltimore meeting, ARIN isn't consistent in applications of
language like and appear to be widely abused. ARIN already has
Section 12. Why is that not good enough?
I agree with Marty here. We could eliminate that, if you all think Section 12
is enough.
I don't think it's enough, John didn't think it's enough, why is there
any interest in gutting any possible language that can be used by the
RIR to deny obviously fraudulent requests?
I really don't understand this. If a criminal org is clever enough
about it, they can obtain resources fraudulently. That is a GIVEN in
ALL kinds of crime - if the criminal is smart enough, they are going to
get away with it.
Live with it.
That isn't an excuse to roll over and say "well org X got away with it
so we might as well give up trying to stop it"
Regulatory language is a matter of degrees. You make something
difficult enough to do so that it takes the opportunity to do bad away
from those who would otherwise be honest about it.
Banks don't lay $100 bills on the counter in front of the public and
ignore them because they know that this is enough to cause some honest
people to be dishonest.
The RIR should not make it so easy to fraudulently obtain resources for
out-of-area use that the honest users start feeling that it's such a
free-for-all that they should join the rest of the fraudulent requesters.
We acknowledge that truly evil orgs are going to do the work needed to
fraudulently obtain out of area resources. We can't write policy to
end that, but we CAN write policy to keep the honest people honest. And
that policy isn't "toss all the clubs out the window"
Ted
We seem to have completely (as usual) ignored all of the feedback
from the microphone at both the PPC and the Baltimore meeting.
Not at all. All of the proposed changes are directly responsive to mic feedback
in Baltimore. If you recall, the prior version had rather complicated and
potentially burdensome reporting and review requirements regarding duplication
of requests. That was what people complained about (including you). We've
eliminated them.
On the other hand there was direct expressions of support for the general
objective from almost everyone, including someone from Microsoft and from
Google, neither of whom were AC members, as well as another person whose
affiliation I can't recall.
resources stating that this is a no op as well: already using numbers in
other regions and even ARIN (Curran) chimed in and said that it wasn't
a problem.
I think you're interpretation of the situation is WAY out of line with the
reality. Staff wants to STOP out of region use, and is doing so de facto
because of the ambiguities in the policy. Yes, lots of people are already using
numbers in other regions but if you want to continue to do that with new
requests we need to solidify the policy and make it clear that this is ok.
Anyone care to address the points, from a technical perspective, that
the LEO community raised as well?
You mean LEAs (law enforcement agencies)? Did you read the comments? Those
concerns were addressed:
"The requirement to have a minimal level of resources deployed in the region (/44
for IPv6, /22 for IPv4, 1 ASN) is an attempt to respond to law enforcement and some
community concerns. An absolute threshold ensures that those applying for ARIN resources
are actually operating in the region and not simply a shell company, but it avoids the
known pitfalls of trying to use percentages of the organization's overall holdings to do
that."
I really wish the AC would get out of the regulatory business and into
the stewardship business.<hope>
Marty, by opposing this policy you are encouraging and authorizing ARIN staff
to restrict and regulate out of region use. You're the advocate of regulatory
business here. Make your choice, but at least understand which side you are
taking.
--MM
_______________________________________________
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.
