I posit that IP addresses are most efficient when in use on networks and
not when in inventory at an RIR.
My android sent this.
On Apr 29, 2014 9:32 AM, "Martin Hannigan" wrote:
> How about an apolitical last /N policy?
>
>
>
> Section N Last IPv4 Addresses Available in Region
>
> Upon rece
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
> >
> > From: arin-discuss-boun...@arin.net [arin-discuss-boun...@arin.net] on
> behalf of Martin Hannigan [hanni...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM
> > To: William Herrin
> > Cc: arin
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover co
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from
> resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare that an
> incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an AC
> member of the la
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:58 AM, John Brown wrote:
> Industry capture is actually something that could be prevented by term
> limits.
>
Exactly the opposite is quite possible, actually. As has been pointed out
already, large organizations can throw a new person into the election (or
large group
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
> My Opinion: I think their policy acknowledges reality and embraces it!
> Their policy obviously PROMOTES the Internet which is what the RIRs were
> created to do in the first place. It is time for the ARIN community to do
> something simila
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
> > We've seen no additional feedback to this most recent version (v3 13
> August
> > 2013) of ARIN-2013-4. We have attempted to include all of the feedb
es no
> later than ninety (90) days from the date of the signature of this
> agreement by all parties.
> "
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM, David Conra
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Chris,
>
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
> > This current text aims to document existing practice based on historical
> norms which best instruct the driving principles required to successf
Hail PPML!
We've seen no additional feedback to this most recent version (v3 13 August
2013) of ARIN-2013-4. We have attempted to include all of the feedback
received into this latest version of text and I personally hope that all
major issues have been addressed. This current text aims to documen
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, David Huberman <
david.huber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> ** **
>
> For 15 years, ARIN policy (derived from RFC2050) has promoted a dichotomy
> between provider networks and enterprise networks. I submit that the
> dichotomy between enterprises and
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> If you are publicly traded and your company’s revenues are public then
> the size of the company is available to all. This could be used to make
> sure only a large organization who might actually have use for it can get a
> /8 or other la
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 7/12/13 10:37 , Jason Schiller wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I took the liberty or changing the subject to "Fair Distribution" in
>> order to make this a
>> completely separate thread allowing the other conversation to continue
>> (possibly at
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Well said, Bill. I haven't participated in this debate because I don't think
> it is able to accomplish anything productive. The ARIN NPRM already contains
> a section (4.1) called "General Principles" for IPv4, and for IPv6 sections
>
, GA 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
>
path, both can serve conservation if
properly managed.
Cheers,
~Chris
PS - I don't want to dominate the conversation here, so I'll likely
resist replying to further conversational/directed replies and try to
stick more to moderation, etc...
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>>> I say that conservation as effected through RIR policies have never been>
>>> directed at the utilization of allocated addresses, except in the context of
>>
>> additional free pool allocations.
>
>
>> That should read "except in the contex
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> This is however a solid observation, and I have a couple items for
> consideration in response:
>
> 1) Conservation is not the only guiding principle listed here for a
> reason, the principle of stewardship is in large part needed to
> balance
t;
> It would seem like the RSA is ignoring a guiding principle of stewardship!
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:46 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Bill Darte ; William Herrin ; arin-ppm
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding principle
> should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation of them.
> The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of addresses.
> Conservation was not
Hi all,
The words used were carefully chosen:
"The principle of conservation guarantees sustainability of the
Internet through efficient utilization of unique number resources."
Let me shed some light on why.
Conservation[1] is the act of conserving. It is "the management of
human use of natura
Thanks David, I think those are both good editorial changes that need
to be made in any subsequent version.
~Chris
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 7/8/13 17:02 , David Farmer wrote:
>>
>> My first reaction is I mostly like the update, but I immediately see a
>> few nit
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:28 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
>> First of all this is not a vote, and while I appreciate you're
>> attempts to help (I assume), they come across as a manipulative
>> attempt at
to address how to balance, or what
> balance function to apply.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> As the shepherd for ARIN-2013-4, I'd like to note that while the
>> initial conversation on thi
. Your assistance is not needed, thanks any
way, you can stop now.
Cheers,
~Chris
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Chris Grundemann
> wrote:
>> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
>> (Conservation/Sustainability)?
>
> 7 of 20 resp
responded yet, to provide their thoughts. I've avoided sending such
a summary for fear it would have a chilling effect, signaling that the
thread is closed. This is not the case.
~Chris
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Chris Grundemann
wrote:
> > 1) Do you support the pri
my android sent this
On Jun 9, 2013 9:37 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
> > Question 1 was structured to produce Yes answers
>
> [Milton L Mueller] Yep. But it didn't succeed so well, did it?
>
The question was structured based on the language in the d
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
>> (Conservation/Sustainability)?
>
> [Milton L Mueller] Chris, as you know, conservation needs to be detached from
> needs asses
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>>> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
>>> (Conservation/Sustainability)?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> There also seems to be an associated concept that i
Hello all,
As the shepherd for ARIN-2013-4, I'd like to note that while the
initial conversation on this draft policy was fairly constructive,
more recent comments have gone a bit off topic. Rather than debating
the history of internet governance it would be very helpful for the AC
to understand t
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> While we are at it, we might want to clarify a few things about the general
> "needs assessment" debate:
Saying the same thing over and over again in hopes that people will
eventually believe it is not "clarification," IMHO.
> * critiqu
31 matches
Mail list logo
