Hello -
Taking off my ARIN AC hat and speaking personally, I oppose this.
I believe - even though it's not perfect - keeping the requirement in place
provides a form of risk mitigation both for organizations and for ARIN.
-Anita
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:51 AM Joe Provo wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
Hi Matthew
While I appreciate the legal teams opinion, I am not yet convinced to this
end on this issue and as such my sentiments remain and I still oppose the
idea entirely.
Noah
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022, 22:50 Matthew Wilder, wrote:
> Hi PPML,
>
> Staff and Legal review has been conducted for Dra
Hi Adam
On 12/09/2022 13:56, Adam Thompson wrote:
The error in what Fernando just said is: parent companies do not, in
fact, transfer their possibly-valuable IP space to subsidiaries - they
assign/allocate instead. Until very recently, that wasn’t possible in
many cases, so we wound up with
Updated RSA agreement available.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
Begin forwarded message:
From: ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>>
Subject: [arin-announce] New ARIN Registration Services Agreement
Date: 12 September 2022 at 12:56:02 PM EDT
To: "arin-anno
Speaking for myself, I oppose this draft policy. In my opinion even though
there is no legal binding to this attestation, there is a substantial
organization awareness level that having an officer attestation brings to those
beyond the IT or technical teams. This type of awareness helped me in e
Hi Fernando,
Leasing is not defined in the proposal and the language in the proposal is
explicitly false in at least one case regarding RIPE.
I’m not sure why you don’t just fix it and add a lease definition.
You have not addressed the problem of small businesses who can’t afford to
purc
The error in what Fernando just said is: parent companies do not, in fact,
transfer their possibly-valuable IP space to subsidiaries - they
assign/allocate instead. Until very recently, that wasn’t possible in many
cases, so we wound up with yet another instance of ARIN policy that actively
pr
Hey folks,
We haven't had any feedback here after the publication
of the Staff & Legal review as noted in Matthew's message
below. Given that it speaks directly to concerns raised
here on PPML, we need community feedback here to confirm
*our* impressions.
Please let us know!
Joe
On Wed, A
I agree with Mike Burns.
Bruce C
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Why not go back and fix the proposal language mis-describing the situation at
> other RIRs and define leasing within your proposal, and provide us with a new
> version to consider?
>
Hi
Em 12/09/2022 13:09, Mike Burns escreveu:
Hi Fernando,
Why not go back and fix the proposal language mis-describing the
situation at other RIRs and define leasing within your proposal, and
provide us with a new version to consider?
The situation in the other RIRs are most correct and co
Hi Fernando,
Why not go back and fix the proposal language mis-describing the situation at
other RIRs and define leasing within your proposal, and provide us with a new
version to consider?
I will simply point out that leasing is effectively a transfer to those in
need, and that not ever
Hi Marco and Jordi,
I am afraid that my input from RIPE is more recent, on August 3rd, 2022 in
which I inquired specifically whether leased addresses would provide
justification of an inbound inter-regional transfer from LACNIC:
"... Only ARIN has a need based policy at the moment, LACNIC does
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:10 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
> I don’t think there is such thing (formally speaking), and is not.
>
>
There is. Its been a long time since someone tried to take that approach.
John Curran/SAA will know if a specific document exists
I don’t think there is such thing (formally speaking), and is not.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 12/9/22, 14:24, "Martin Hannigan" escribió:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:02 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
Hi Martin,
No, is not a global policy, they are onl
I speak in favor of this proposal.
Since address space has always been considered not to be property, and
ONLY for the use in active networks, leasing companies violate these
standards by holding addresses that are not in active use.
I agree that companies should not be able to hold or obtain
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:02 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> No, is not a global policy, they are only meant for IANA-RIR matters.
>
>
>
> We just mention what is the actual situation in other RIRs, also because
> we have submitted similar pol
Hi Martin,
No, is not a global policy, they are only meant for IANA-RIR matters.
We just mention what is the actual situation in other RIRs, also because we
have submitted similar policies, but as we all know, it may happen in one
region and not in others.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipale
Very confusing. If this is to proceed it needs to be substantially boiled
down to what it may be intended to mean.
However, is the author saying this is to be a globally coordinated policy?
“ In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their p
Hi Marco,
Small clarification from our side. We actually checked this with the policy
officer around March-April-May 2022, if I recall correctly.
What we got from that email exchange was that "leasing" is not defined, but
also was not explicitly allowed neither disallowed as a valid justificati
Dear Jon and colleagues,
I would like to provide some clarification for the RIPE region.
The proposal states
--
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
N
20 matches
Mail list logo
