On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:29 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> For some definition of a particular subset of the "ARIN community", it may be
> true that accuracy of registration information is secondary to imposing
> policy dictates. I suspect, however, that for the vast majority of actual
> users of reg
On Feb 11, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Owen,
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> "The importance of maintaining accurate records in the RIPE database is
>>> recognised as the NCC's principal task. "
>>> (well, ok, they spelled recognized wrong :))
>> No, they s
On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:29 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I'm curious: do you personally believe that accuracy of registration data is
> secondary to imposing policy dictates?
David -
To be clear, the registration data is accurate, in that it reflects the party
which has the
rights to the address
Owen,
On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> "The importance of maintaining accurate records in the RIPE database is
>> recognised as the NCC's principal task. "
>> (well, ok, they spelled recognized wrong :))
> No, they spelled it the way the British do instead of the Americans.
It
On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
(drc)
Needs testing, in and of itself, is not the issue. What is at issue is what
ARIN does when a transfer occurs (and they have, do, and will occur) outside of
"justified" need. As a _registry_, I believe ARIN's role (a
> "The importance of maintaining accurate records in the RIPE database is
> recognised as the NCC's principal task. "
>
> (well, ok, they spelled recognized wrong :))
No, they spelled it the way the British do instead of the Americans.
This shouldn't be a surprise, given that Europe, in general
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Heather Schiller
wrote:
> I am opposed to the policy because of this line " IXP's formed as non
> profits will be considered end user organizations. All others will be
> considered ISPs."
>
> This statement will impact the overwhelming majority of Critical
> Infr
Support. I wrote what appears to be "the offending language" in order to
clean up vague, unclear language already memorialized in the existing
policy.
To wit:
"ISPs and other organizations receiving these micro-allocations will be
charged under the ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charge
Opposed as written.
Agree with the following reasoning. I am OK with the 2 -> 3 change.
John Springer
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Heather Schiller wrote:
I oppose the policy as written.
I don't have an opinion on the 2 vs 3, though I see it as such a small change
and given the total number of CI IX
I oppose the policy as written.
I don't have an opinion on the 2 vs 3, though I see it as such a small
change and given the total number of CI IX assignments (66 over how many
years?) it won't significantly change anything.
I am opposed to the policy because of this line " IXP's formed as non
pro
Chris,
On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Also, the RIRs, and ARIN in particular, were not created to "promote the
> Internet" necessarily (although I do find that a laudable cause)
True.
> - their primary purpose is to _support the Internet_ by acting as stewards of
> the
On Feb 10, 2014, at 09:19 , Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:53:43AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
>> So are you in favor of or opposed to 2014-1
>
> I'm opposed to it, because I just don't buy that it will actually
> solve any problem. The existing policy neither forbids
On Feb 9, 2014, at 20:37 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 2/8/2014 6:19 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> If we want to manage addresses this way, we should first endeavor to pass
>>> a globally coordinated policy to the effect that multiregion
13 matches
Mail list logo
