The phrase that always went around "back in the day" was : members of the
community have the right to seek policy proposals in their own interests.
Law enforcement in particular was encouraged in this way. And members (in
the old sense) did. And it was perfectly normal for large resource holders
(a
Hi John, Larry, all
The initial implementation will only support a (what kind of) single key?
Having struggled with this a bit, and as I'm sure you know, various vendors
support variations.
Does ARIN mean one (1) Yubikey? Or one (1) any kind of FIDO2 key? Or the
latter with exceptions? And if onl
No, no and again, no.
John Springer
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 09:06 Andrew Dul wrote:
> Happy New Year everyone...
>
> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was
> clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move
> this d
The question of whether or not the problem statement is clear is not
pertinent to the question of the petition, which is only, at this point,
concerned with scope. Clarity is only pertinent to the AC, if and only if,
the proposal is returned to the AC with a BoT ruling that it is is scope.
And hypo
I support the petition, John Springer, currently unaffiliated.
I welcome correction on any of this, but at this moment, ARIN-prop-266: BGP
Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation is dead as a policy proposal to the
AC. If this petition is successful, it "will refer the question of whethe
I support Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2 as written.
The community has the right to receive incremental improvement without
achieving perfection.
John Springer
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 09:50 ARIN wrote:
> On 21 February 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-261: W
good time for further expressions of support. Statements of
non-support are also solicited, if any.
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_13.html
John Springer
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public
ent intent,
but that is not my decision. I am still, somewhat reluctantly, in support.
John Springer
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage you
equired to SWIP. Thanks again for helping me clarifying that.
John Springer
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Scott Leibrand
wrote:
> No. It says:
>
> Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or
> sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced, sh
nfair and partial if someone makes unfounded assertions
regarding linkages between v4 and V6. And it is not technically unsound to
make fallacious observations if they are kind of orthogonal to the meat of
the matter.
So, still support. I'd rather see it simpler, but I guess I can tolerate a
litt
that will be individually announced," refers to /47s, /46s, /45s ...
and not /48s, /49s, /50s, etc.
John Springer
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Leif Sawyer wrote:
> Happy Friday, everybody.
>
>
>
> As promised, here is the latest rewrite of the draft policy below,
Well said, David.
Thank you.
John Springer
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:23 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> In the most general sense a state is a corporation. See;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#History Further, in most cases
> the agencies of a state are not independent but sub
he
current registrant.
OR
The recipient must show that they have acquired the entire corporate entity
which is the current registrant.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
regards
John Springer
ARIN AC member and shepherd of 2016-9
___
PPML
You are receiv
sound and fair to me, but expressions
of support will be required to advance.
Thank you in advance.
John Springer
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN wrote:
> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
> Proposal to Draft Policy status:
>
> ARIN-prop-22
)
via the ASCP process: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html
My opinion only.
John Springer
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 17, 2015, at 14:30, Ron Baione wrote:
The internet is supposed to make it easier for businesses and business
people to connect and get t
Thanks, Matt
This is precisely the subject on which I hoped to get community feedback.
John Springer
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Matthew Petach wrote:
OPPOSED
How I subdivide and allocate addresses
internally and downstream is not a matter
for the community to vote on; that's between
me a
Hi Owen,
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:37 , John Springer wrote:
And if you have an opinion of no, are you able to say because it is technically
unsound or unfair and partial?
This isn?t really necessary, John. A proposal must be fair, technically sound
?
And if you have an opinion of no, are you able to say because it is
technically unsound or unfair and partial?
John Springer
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, ARIN wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
Minimum IPv6 Assignments
On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-224
Mi
ot at liberty to ascribe much weight to an appeal to
ridicule.
5) Pie
As I said below, I don't think we should be able arbitrarily to torpedo
any community member's proposed policies without good reason.
John Springer
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, John Springer wrote:
Hi PPML and Randy a
this to fix it.
3) Advance it. I haven't heard any convincing opposition.
TIA and in reverse to everyone for the comments and the courtesies.
John Springer
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I think many of us are still wondering why. As stated, what is the problem that is t
forwarded here by kind permission of Owen DeLong
I hope that this will inform our discussions.
John Springer
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:08:10
From: Owen DeLong
Subject: [arin-council] Transfer Statistics analysis
Based on today?s discussion, I took the
stance may be acknowledged and then not taken into
account, by fair minded people who wish to have a logic based discussion.
Clearly you _FEEL_ strongly. As Lee Howard would say, that does not make
you more persuasive. Reasons will do that.
John Springer
On 5/16/14, 15:20 , ARIN wrote:
On 15 May
ellent question, such commentary would be valuable and welcome, and if
so, what?
John Springer
Andrew
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manag
hope
you will assist in its processing, as always.
John Springer
bd
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:35 AM, John Springer wrote:
Hi All,
The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
As always,
William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer wrote:
ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
Policy statement:
Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
transfer: from "The recipient must demonstrate the need for up
es to the text as written will have to be
listened to and responded to and cannot speed things up.
I am _NOT_ saying do not dissent, only that the conversation that ensues
will take time.
Not to put words in Marty's mouth, but that is how I interpret what he is
saying.
John Springer
Hi All,
The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
As always, expressions of support or opposition (and their reasons) are given
slightly more weight than reasons why you might be in neither condition.
John
specifies that the information provided is
for informational purposes only. If anything the removal of this text
would strengthen the ability to use a corporate policy emphasizing the use
of name based resolution.
As I said, I'm confused, can you help clarify?
John Springer
_
ask because of the recent interest in the topic.
John Springer
as a member of the community
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing l
ing before. It might be
premature to start disposing of his place just yet. just sayin'
John Springer
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Jason Schiller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand
wrote:| Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I
think term limits would
| help w
It's going to be a little hard to know to whom I am replying due to
non-indentation of replies, but I'll do my best.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, 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
you like to proceed?
John Springer
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Azinger, Marla wrote:
Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC.
When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told
this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was
tomer Support: (877) 877-4799
24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665
Network Operations: (877) 877-1250
www.clearrate.com
I believe Marla was on the Advisory Council for 6 years and not the Board
of Trustees.
John Springer
___
PPML
You are receiving this me
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 numb
Correction:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, John Springer wrote:
Greetings PPML readers,
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be discussed
next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. This
Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to 13
statements so the two are congruent.
It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational
impact, being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what
operational relevance do you see?
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
John Springer
From: ARIN (info at a
pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a
direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not
support the draft policy as written.
John Springer
Thanks.
--
David Farmer Email: far
ce of
requiring corporate documentation, I will require some persuasion before I
can support it. At minimum, I would expect that all additional
validation/verification intended be explicitly spelled out in advance.
John Springer
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Stumme, Terri L. wrote:
As the author of the ori
38 matches
Mail list logo
