Bill,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:34 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:41 PM Cj Aronson wrote:
> > My question for you is what's the real issue you're trying to solve?
>
> Howdy!
>
> There are three things that concern me.
>
> 1. Poli
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 4:52 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cj Aronson wrote:
> > I would like to add here (as someone who was on the AC through all the
> > changes of the policy process) the original policy process was very
> > difficult for th
Bill,
I would like to add here (as someone who was on the AC through all the
changes of the policy process) the original policy process was very
difficult for the AC because we often could not get the author to
participate in the process and so policies that the community wanted and
needed would l
I think the question is why are you replacing "document" with "section"?
So is LIR not used in the rest of the "document"? If it is then doesn't it
still mean what it means in this "section"?
Thanks!
Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 3:01 PM Knowles Consulting
wrote:
> H
Leif
as someone who has been nominated twice and not chosen as a candidate I
have asked for (in addition to transparency)
- The results of the background check of me that was done as part of the
process
- The synopsis of the interview with the contractor who interviews
candidates and gives a syno
The instructions are here
https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/instructions/
Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:03 PM Holden Karau wrote:
> Interesting ARIN shows me as the designated voting contact for my org but
> no link on the dashboard exists for me
Michel,
If you check out the last draft that expired in 2008 you'll see it was
written by Geoff, George, and Paul at APNIC
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00
-Cathy
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:48 PM Michel Py <
mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> > Joe Provo wrote
The IETF has rejected this change to class e space a number of times. The
last draft on this expired in 2008. The overwhelming sentiment on the
subject is that we should focus on deploying IPv6. If you feel strongly
about it then write a new Internet draft and try to get it to move
forward. I
Bill just one comment below
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:40 AM William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM ARIN wrote:
>
>> A petition has been initiated for the following:
>>
>> ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
>>
>> This proposal was rejected due to scope a
sfer policy, there is logic to such a strategy,
> and the current facts seem to justify at least some caution on their part.
>
>
> Finally, the numbers show we have more than enough room to be magnanimous
> in this situation, I believe we should give LACNIC and AFRINIC room to
> maneu
Okay so this formula.. does it just give us Afrinic and Lacnic right? So
why don't we just say that? Since there are only 5 RIRs it seems that
maybe a formula isn't needed?
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM, ARIN wrote:
> The following has been revised:
>
> * Draft Policy
It came up because in the entire history of the Community Networks policy
it has never been used once. So either it's not needed or it needs to be
changed so that it serves some part of the community.
-Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
policies or to create a punitive measure?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Thimmesch
>
>
> On May 26, 2017, at 19:09, Cj Aronson wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Scott Leibrand
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilme
Scott,
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Scott Leibrand
wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <
> r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In message <8a3a301d-39b5-4f81-8e2c-90e23b819...@panix.com>,
>> David Huberman wrote:
>>
>> >In short, there is an argument that the SW
Recently an article about the proposal (link below to policy text and
article) was posted to the RIPE policy list. This policy being discussed
in AFRINIC is very interesting and different than any proposal I have seen
so far. I thought you all might be interested in reading the text. It
basical
David
I agree that we should remove the word reciprocal or make a special
exception for AFRNIC and LACNIC. We once had a separate minimum allocation
for the AFRINIC area before AFRINIC was formed. I think this falls into
that same sort of policy category.
-Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On T
This is a public policy mailing list. If you want to contact ARIN you may
have better results by using their Contact US info
https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html
Just a thought.
-Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Mike Smith wrote:
> Can anyone from ARIN correc
Martin,
Here is the link to the transcript from NANOG 60 PPC (the one before last)
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ppc_nanog60/ppc_transcript.html#anchor_3
Here you said your main objection was the policy requiring a contract and
we took that away.
At the PPC in Washington (NA
Everyone out there. If there are more objections to this policy please
speak up.
Thanks!
Cathy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> There have been more objections than mine all along the route. We pay
> ARIN millions in fees. We simply ask that ARIN do w
Hi everyone
Does anyone have comments on this recommended draft policy?
Thanks!
Cathy
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 19 June 2014 and decided to
> send the following to last call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent
Elvis..
ARIN has had 8.3 transfers since 2009. We long ago accepted that there
would be a market for IP addresses. I believe ARIN was the first RIR to
have such a policy. The link to the archive is here
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html
Soon after we worked on the listing servi
t;
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:42 AM, CJ Aronson wrote:
>
>> Elvis..
>>
>> I am sure with any policy folks will try to game the system.
>>
> You are right, I referred to a workaround that would game the system,
> but there is no actual policy requiring LIR
er RIRs to avoid duplicate registration. My impression is that the RIPE
> NCC is the only RIR that is currently mirroring the other RIR databases and
> making steps towards what I think should become at some point a unique
> point of data collection.
>
> cheers,
> elvis
>
&g
egion."
Cathy
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:31 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
> Let's be clear.. the RIPE NCC will only give a one-time /22 for your 1600
> Euros/year. RIPE has always made applicants prove a business presense in
> the region and I believe that's what the
> "
>
Let's be clear.. the RIPE NCC will only give a one-time /22 for your 1600
Euros/year. RIPE has always made applicants prove a business presense in
the region and I believe that's what the
"
-
The name of the "Chamber of Commerce" where your company is registered
-
For example, C
Hi everyone! This recommended draft policy was just presented at the
Public Policy Consultation at NANOG in Washington. Please review and
comment if you have any input for or against this proposal. Thanks!
-Cathy
-
2013-8 New Subsequent Al
Wow it's going to be one of those Mondays.. I meant this to say Hope you
had a great weekend!
Anyway sorry for my confusion about your post. I think I'll just go have
some more coffee and maybe that will help.
Thanks!
-Cathy
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:56 AM, CJ Aronson wrote:
some of the worst aspects of needs assessments. Let's see how they
> fare in Chicago.
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* CJ Aronson [mailto:c...@daydream.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2014 10:37 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* John Curran; sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com; ar
Milton if someone wants "ARIN to ease it's needs assessment requirements
for transfers" then there has to be a policy proposal submitted that gains
community support. ARIN can't just change this without the process being
followed. In the past the policies to ease needs assessment have not
gained
I just wanted to mention per the research paper all the RIRs gave LOAs for
these covering prefixes. Not just ARIN
"In early October 2012, we contacted each of the five RIRs to request
permission to announce the entire /12 IPv6 address block that had been
allocated to them by IANA. After deliberat
Joe,
The ends don't always justify the means. The reason there is a policy
proposal in the ARIN region to stop this practice is because not everyone
covered by these /12 announcements is happy that their addresses were part
of an experiment. There is a belief that Merit should have had permissio
Bill you should watch the presentation. Basically the RIRs gave these guys
permission to announce the IPv6 /12s that cover >80% of the live IPv6
Internet
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/12-feb-2014.webcast.karir.understanding.ipv6-internet-radiation.mp4
The point is that it's one thing
There is a paper here
http://www.merit.edu/research/pdf/2013/ipv6_darknet_paper_r6098.pdf
that says
"We announced the prefixes: 2400::/12, 2600::/12, 2800::/12, 2c00::/12,
2a08::/13, and 2a04::/14 for over a three-month period. For a few days, we
also announced RIPE's 2a00::/12"
So I believe that
I read some more of that article I sent. They specifically state that they
had LOAs from the RIRs to do these /12 advertisements.
Thanks!
-Cathy
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:49 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
> There is a paper here
> http://www.merit.edu/research/pdf/2013/ipv6_darknet_paper
I have been having a discussion with a member of the community about the
initial allocations to ISPs, NRPM section 4.2. I thought quite a bit about
this last night and I would love your input. It seems to me that we might
want to revamp this in light of IPv4 run out. Does it make sense when the
> Bill already said earlier on the thread he wasn't planning to run again.
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:29 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
>
> Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is
> not on the AC serving a term to which he
Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is
not on the AC serving a term to which he was duly elected? There is no
prohibition about him running for a subsequent term at this point either.
Bill has been an outstanding member of the AC and has done significant work
for
John
The ARIN website has all the data you refer to here. It even has how many
votes each candidate got in each election. You can also google "ARIN
election results " to find a particular year.
Cathy
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:58 PM, John Brown wrote:
> Industry capture is actually som
Here are links that will answer your questions about the AC and the BoT
https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html
https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html
---Cathy
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Michael Wallace wrote:
> What is AC or BoT?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Wallace
>
> ---
Thanks to Jeffrey and Martin for their feedback on 2013-8, Does anyone else
have feedback on this proposal?
Thanks!
Cathy
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
ments current practice
and the ARIN staff requested in a policy experience report that this be
documented so that it is clear what the current practice is.
Cathy
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, CJ Aronson wrote:
>
>
> [ clip
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
> > Jeffrey,
> >
> > The text was changed from "Upon verification that the organization has
> > already obtained connectivity at its new discrete network site" because
> > folks felt that thi
M, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I am opposed to the rewording as the new discrete site is in itself
> demonstration of need. There is a technical requirement to provide at
> least a /24 of space at any discrete site.
>
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:16 PM, CJ Aronson w
Martin,
See below
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
> >
> > "Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites This policy
> > enables fair and impartial number resource administration by documen
Does anyone else have comments about this proposal? The text has been
changed slightly based on feedback from the PPC at NANOG. The change was
from
Upon verification that the organization has already obtained
connectivity at its new discrete network site
to
Upon verification that the organiza
Martin
Do you have any real evidence of real harm being caused by it being two
instead of three?
Thanks!
-Cathy
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Rudi,
>
> Do you have any evidence of real harm?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 6, 2014, Rudolph Dan
Hi everyone,
If you have feedback on this proposal please send it to this list. We will
also be discussing the policy proposal at the upcoming PPC.
Thanks!
Cathy
*Policy Proposal 2013-8 Subsequent Allocations for Additional Distrete
Network Sites*
*Problem Statement:*
During the ARIN 32
Just for reference the policy with regard to IXPs says this below. I
believe that the point was that the IXP had to have at least two customers
and all this other information that they are providing a credible IXP in
order to get a micro allocation.
-Cathy
"Exchange point operators must prov
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > The word you are looking for there, John, is "has become". We've already
> seen
> > multiple reports from members of the community that they are deadlocked
> on this
> > issue because th
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but it limits that use to strictly transitional technology
> deployment, not general IPv4 utilization.
>
>
I think this is something we should be discussing. Right now the only post
run out policy ARIN has is for the last /10. You
This is why RIPE and APNIC both have their last /8 policy. Anyone can get
a /22 once out of the last /8 (til there are no more). Both are now
signing up tons of new customers. Both are generating a large amount of
revenue. The small guys can all get their /22. Just sayin'
-Cathy
On Fr
ing, John
wrote:
> Right, I just wanted to point out for clarity that for 2013-4 the
> preferred path is to continue through the ARIN PDP process. And thanks for
> all the good information (Cathy too).
>
>
>
> From: Jason Schiller
> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:00 AM
> T
Chris there is no process for "globally coordinated" policies. I wrote
one long ago but it never went anywhere.
Cathy
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
>
>> Someone help
Someone help me here.
I am not sure this would qualify as a "global policy" in terms of the ASO
MOU. The document is here
http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm
I have always been told that an global policy is distinctly one that
regulates the interaction between ICANN/IANA and the RI
54 matches
Mail list logo
