To clarify, I believe your voice counts, even if you only ever participate in this single issue. I was suggesting, that more participation is even better and that it also takes away that argument from those that perceive single-issue participation as an issue.
Sorry, if that wasn't clear on my part. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:29 PM Jason Baugher <jasonbaug...@adamstel.com> wrote: > As an organization that decided to support ARIN-2020-2, this was also our > first foray into participation in this group. We never expected the > response we’ve had to what seemed like it would be an honest policy debate. > In additionl to someone accusing companies like us of taking “incentives” > from Stratus for support, another implied that we shouldn’t have a voice > because we are a “single-issue participant”. I would remind them that > everyone on this list was a single-issue participant the first time they > spoke up in favor or against a policy change, and we have just as much > right as everyone else to have a voice here. If you wonder why more orgs > don’t participate in these policy discussions, maybe look at how this > particular debate has proceeded for your answer. > > > > Stratus has offered us no incentives. As an ISP in their region, they > merely reached out to us, asked that we look at the information for > ourselves, and if we agreed, to voice our support. Whether ARIN-2020-2 > succeeds or fails has no impact on our operations. We support it strictly > on its merits. > > > > Jason > > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Eric Lee > *Sent:* Monday, November 2, 2020 1:20 PM > *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net > *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 > > > CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization. > Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you > know it's safe. > > > In response to David, I think it's important that entities be involved in > the process. I was unaware of an ability to have a voice until this issue. > It's important that we become engaged in this community as the issues are > important to all. Whether it's this issue, the discussion of IPV6 or other > methods of tackling the IP space issue, or any other matter addressed in > this forum, we should all be working together to resolve those issues by > giving our input. If entities become engaged in the broader forum because > of this topic, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. > > In response to Tom, he describes it fairly. There was nothing from Stratus > other than a request for support and information about how to get involved. > There was no follow-up from them on the request. We determined that the > issue had merit and put our support behind it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:05 PM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 185, Issue 6 > > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > arin-ppml@arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: > Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by > Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 (David Farmer) > 2. Re: Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 (John Santos) > 3. Re: Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 (Joe Provo) > 4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of > Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of > ARIN-2019-16 (Tom Pruitt) > 5. Re: Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 (Martin Hannigan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:06:06 -0600 > From: David Farmer > To: ARIN-PPML List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by > Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > As I have said before, I believe that the implementation of ARIN-2019-16 > was fair, more precisely, I believe it was objectively fair. Nevertheless, > I think we can all acknowledge that subjectively, it never quite seems fair > when you're the one that ends up with the short end of the stick, however > objectively fair the decision actually was. Accordingly, I have some > empathy for those that ended up with the short end of the stick in this > situation, through no fault of their own, and support this policy to > restore at least some of those dropped from the waiting list by the > implementation of ARIN-2019-16, even though I don't think we can or should > restore everyone that was dropped. > > Further, more participation is always a good thing for the Policy > Development Process (PDP). However, there is at least the perception that > many of the new participants are participating in the discussion of only > this single issue, if true, this is not healthy participation, this > perception concerns me. My suggestion to these new participants is, for you > to combat this perception by reviewing and commenting on the many other > policies under discussion. Please don't allow yourself to be tagged, and > possibly dismissed, as a single-issue participant. > > Thank you. > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:37:49 -0500 > From: John Santos > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 > Message-ID: <7bb438ed-94fd-49af-5854-e69da42a4...@egh.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I thought we went through all this when the policy change was adopted. The > issues at the time, as best I understood them, were requests that exceeded > the new limit and requests from organizations that already have large > allocations or assignments. The options discussed, for both issues, was > whether to retain the existing requests, to allow the organizations to > reduce their request to the new maximum (or lower) while retaining their > place in line, or to drop requesters who exceeded the maximum current > holdings or who were making a large request completely. (If they met the > new policy, they could file a new request and go to the end of the line.) > > I didn't pay much attention because my company's current size (a legacy > class C) is sufficient, and some day, hopefully in this millennium, one or > both of our ISPs will offer IPv6. (They both have been claiming to have it > in testing for years, but no announced availability dates, last time I > checked.) > > And mostly, the whole thing was academic because the free pool was > essentially empty and there seemed to be little prospect of any returns > that would refill it, so no one on the wait list, unless they were seeking > an initial /24, had any real chance of getting anything, and even they > would probably have to wait a while. > > IIRC, the adopted policy was to offer orgs on the wait list who's request > was too large the chance to drop their request size, and remove anyone > whose current holdings were too large, sort of a middle course. > > The kid in front of Oliver wants an entire pot of porridge, but there's > barely enough to give Oliver a second scoop, let alone another bowl. I > think this discussion and proposal are a major waste of time and effort and > I oppose. > > > On 11/2/2020 8:50 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML > > > wrote: > > > > I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this is "special > > benefits". > > > > > > Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities changes > create. > > Governments do it and business does it. To some extent, the could be > > called "special benefits". However, the context of that is different, > > some feel the benefits create an inequity rather than resolve one. > > > > Organizations went through the approved process to get on the wait list > to > > *possibly* be assigned an address block. The policy on allocations was > > changed, however the organizations did everything by the book per > previous > > policy. The organization is now told that they have to go through the > > process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do with potential > space > > allocation. I am all for limiting the allocation amount in the future. > > However, to penalize an organization that has followed the process to > this > > point is unfair. This also is no guarantee that these organizations will > > receive an allocation. More likely, they'll continue to wait. > > > > This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations that went > through > > the proper process of what was approved policy at the time. A similar > > scenario would be arresting someone who has broken a law, prior to the > > offense becoming law. > > > > > > The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that > > grandfathering addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list > and getting nothing? > > There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as far as > > I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself > > requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting > > minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with > much at all. > > > > > > > > I continue to support this policy, not because I agree that larger > requests > > should be granted, but because the organizations had followed the > approved > > process and policies. > > > > > > I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't seen > > strong arguments one way or the other. > > > > Fair enough. Thank you. > > > > Warm regards, > > > > -M< > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > John Santos > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:50:32 -0500 > From: Joe Provo > To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 > Message-ID: <20201102175031.ga14...@gweep.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:50:16AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML < > > arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > [snip] > > The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that grandfathering > > addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting > > nothing? There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as > > far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself > > requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting > > minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with > > much at all. > > > Speaking only for myself, not any employer or any elected > capacity, I oppose the policy precisely because it is a > one-time action for one set of entities and (by its own > logic) still leaving another set of affected entities [as > noted by Andrew Dul 22 Oct) in the current state. I > personally expected the community to respond to ARIN-2019-16 > in some way, but as a more structural approach to wait-list > handling, not a one-time action for a set of parties. > > Policies change, sometimes they apply going forward and other > times they apply universally. The wait list has changed and > will change in future in response to the needs of the community; > it has never carried any guarantee or lack of risk. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:51:50 +0000 > From: Tom Pruitt > To: ARIN , "arin-ppml@arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: > Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation > of ARIN-2019-16 > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > As a result of the waitlist requirements being changed without > grandfathering to those that were on it, Stratus decided to educate > ourselves as to how ARIN and their policies work. We have taken that > education and in turn tried to educate others in the community that might > not be aware. We have let those that we have spoken with know how ARIN > works and what happened in our situation. Some of the posts in support have > come from those we have educated, but many have come from those we don?t > know. To be clear here we did not tell anyone what to say, fake anything or > offer anything whatsoever in return for engaging in the discussion or > giving support. Any accusations of the kind are defamatory and false. It is > our hope that those we have brought to the conversation table will remain > engaged moving forward and educate others they know. The more opinions that > can be brought into ARIN the better the community will be as a whole moving > into the future. This conve > rsation itself seems to have fallen off the tracks a bit. The bottom line > is we believe that the AC did not properly address what to do with the > organizations that were on the list but would be eliminated at the time of > implementation of ARIN-2019-16. We believe this was an error. We believe > the fair thing to do is address it in retrospect and the fair thing to do > is grandfather those organizations. This is spelled out in the proposal. We > also believe that the AC should learn from this mistake in future changes. > > > > Thanks, > Tom Pruitt > Network Engineer > Stratus Networks > > > This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus > Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is > addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have > reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please > notify the sender at 309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from > your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, > printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:04:29 -0500 > From: Martin Hannigan > To: p...@rsuc.gweep.net > Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Makes sense to me combined with the other posts, my reading and Owen?s > documented thoughts. > > I?m not in favor. > > Thank you to all the posters. Including the new ones. Welcome. > > Warm regards, > > -M< > > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 12:50 Joe Provo wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:50:16AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML < > > > > > arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that > grandfathering > > > > > addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting > > > > > nothing? There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list > as > > > > > far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in > itself > > > > > requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting > > > > > minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with > > > > > much at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself, not any employer or any elected > > > > capacity, I oppose the policy precisely because it is a > > > > one-time action for one set of entities and (by its own > > > > logic) still leaving another set of affected entities [as > > > > noted by Andrew Dul 22 Oct) in the current state. I > > > > personally expected the community to respond to ARIN-2019-16 > > > > in some way, but as a more structural approach to wait-list > > > > handling, not a one-time action for a set of parties. > > > > > > > > Policies change, sometimes they apply going forward and other > > > > times they apply universally. The wait list has changed and > > > > will change in future in response to the needs of the community; > > > > it has never carried any guarantee or lack of risk. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > > > > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > ARIN-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: > > > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML@arin.net > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 185, Issue 6 > ***************************************** > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > *Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager* > 405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217 > P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | *www.adams.net* > <http://www.adams.net/> > [image: Adams-Logo] <http://adams.net/> > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND > CONFIDENTIAL, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. > If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, > reproduce or use this email message (or the attachments) and notify the > sender of the mistaken transmission. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.