Hi Milton and All,
I am concerned with the following:
"ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's
number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen
only when there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests."
I feel this should b
I will reiterate my comment that /44 is too stringent and /48 should be used
instead.
Owen
On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Based on feedback from NANOG, our Baltimore general meeting, and the AC
> meeting and list I have revised 2014-1 for what I hope is the last tim
Nice rewrite. The policy text is clear, implementable, enforceable, and in my
opinion, properly meets the intent of the policy (that is, to give ARIN staff
clear policy text telling them what to do when companies from outside the
region petition ARIN for its free space).
Fully support.
David
Based on feedback from NANOG, our Baltimore general meeting, and the AC meeting
and list I have revised 2014-1 for what I hope is the last time. I have updated
the Wiki and am requesting staff and legal review.
I believe the proposal is technically sound, enables fair and impartial
resource a
