All these arguments are most interesting, but of course nothing is certain
until the LAST judge says so...I for one would be/have been anxious to see
these principles tried in court. If I were a betting man, I would believe
that whatever argument seemed to establish the greatest order and stabilit
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:33 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> or, at the absolute most, a reading of RFC 2050 with all ambiguity
>> construed in the registrants' most favorable light.
>
> Accepting the point above for sake of argument, here's th
On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> or, at the absolute most, a reading of RFC 2050 with all ambiguity
> construed in the registrants' most favorable light.
Accepting the point above for sake of argument, here's the relevant
section of RFC 2050 -
" 7. The transfer of I
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:54 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Probably best to refer to RFC 2050, since your resources were managed
> by the InterNIC at that time, and RFC 2050 states: "This document
> describes the IP assignment policies currently used by the Regional
> Registries to implement the guideli
On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:07 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Note that RFC 2050 was operative at that time, with language requiring the
>> recipient to meet the same criteria as when qualifying to receive space; i.e.
>> Even under your assertions above, legacy holders doing transfers would be
>> still be
l-boun...@arin.net on behalf
> of CJ Aronson
> *Sent:* Monday, April 7, 2014 7:37:06 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net; sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 (Sandra
> Brown)
>
>
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:59 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no
>> policy changes"
>
> Note that RFC 2050 was operative at that time, with language requiring the
> recipient to meet
On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Thanks, Bill,
> Always nice to have some institiutional memory brought to bear.
>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> For example: http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf
>>
>> quoting from page 9:
>>
>> "Current and old allocations and th
Thanks, Bill,
Always nice to have some institiutional memory brought to bear.
> -Original Message-
>
> For example: http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf
>
> quoting from page 9:
>
> "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy
> changes"
>
> This was
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM, wrote:
>
> --
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 19:41:04 -0700
> From: Jay Martin
> To: david.huber...@microsoft.com
> Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net"
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
&
On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:59 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no
> policy changes"
Bill -
Note that RFC 2050 was operative at that time, with language requiring the
recipient to meet the same criteria as when qualifying to receive space
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> absent any change in
>>> direction, ARIN must hold to the position set at its establishment and its
>>> in
>>> foundational documents that all address space in the registry is subject
pril 07, 2014 10:37 AM
>> *To:* Milton L Mueller
>> *Cc:* John Curran; sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com; arin-ppml@arin.net
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 (Sandra
>> Brown)
>>
>>
>>
>> Milton if someone w
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
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; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Diges
On Apr 7, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> To the extent that the community feels that registry policy should be
>> applicable in general to the management of address blocks in the region,
>> then the rights afforded to address holders must definitely be a subset of
>> what most folks
, 2014 7:37:06 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net; sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 (Sandra Brown)
Milton if someone wants "ARIN to ease it's needs assessment requirements for
transfers" then there has
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
> -Original Message-
>
> To the extent that the community feels that registry policy should be
> applicable in general to the management of address blocks in the region,
> then the rights afforded to address holders must definitely be a subset of
> what most folks would consider "propert
PPML community -
Without speaking for or against any given policy proposal, it is
necessary to respond to several of Sandra's remarks as they do not
reflect the actual structure of the Internet Number Registry System
On Apr 6, 2014, at 11:49 AM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
> It
--
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 19:41:04 -0700
From: Jay Martin
To: david.huber...@microsoft.com
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi David,
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:34:22 -0700
From: Owen DeLong
To: David Huberman
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I find this very interesting considering that both Ste
May also be wise to use an address broker or market maker who can escrow funds
with completion guarantees. They generally know the process. Sounds like it
might be a useful service here.
Pick one:
Addrex - Expert knowledge. Know where the bodies are hidden
Hilco - Boutique/chapter 7/11
You wrote: "the buyer who is interested in our first /16 want us to update
ARIN whois records before we sell it to the buyer. "
Perhaps if you solve that problem with your buyer, the rest of your issues
become moot. ARIN policy and procedure can only go so far. Private parties
have to put f
On Apr 5, 2014, at 12:36 AM, xiaofan yang
mailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John
Your M&A transfer may indeed be rejected if you do not have adequate
documentation; see my prior email regarding list of acceptable documents.
As refer to your list of acceptable documents, please help to
sold yet. RSA paragraph 6 says they can't do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> N.B. I am not your lawyer, and I am not providing you with legal advice.
>> I am not providing you advice on behalf of my employer, and I do not speak
>> for my employer.
>>
>>
>>
r, and I am not providing you with legal advice. I
> am not providing you advice on behalf of my employer, and I do not speak
> for my employer.
>
>
>
> /david
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net on
> behalf of xia
Hi John
Your M&A transfer may indeed be rejected if you do not have adequate
documentation; see my prior email regarding list of acceptable documents.
As refer to your list of acceptable documents, please help to resend the
list to me cos i cannot find your previous email.
thanks,
Niki
On
ar...@polartel.com
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
Hi Kevin,
I am quite confused by John's explanation too.
It seems ARIN always provides plenty of information meaning nothing.
Same happens to ask HM, HM will always reply neutrally and I still
On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:51 PM, xiaofan yang
mailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please explain what do you mean by " pursue another transfer request to bring
your
utilization in line with policy." ?
what does this "another transfer "refer to ? which policy should we based on?
You indicated th
Hi John,
Please explain what do you mean by " pursue another transfer request to
bring your
utilization in line with policy." ?
what does this "another transfer "refer to ? which policy should we based
on?
furthermore, i am afraid of ARIN rejecting the 8.2 transfer , not even to
mention the
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:55:48 -0500
From: Kevin Kargel
To: "arin-ppml@arin.net"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
Message-ID:
<8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28013645561D@MAIL1.polartel.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-
On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:19 PM, xiaofan yang wrote:
> However, in basis of john's reply i will rephrase his explanation as the
> following meaning:
>
> I will try my best to transfer the two /16 to third party via 8.3/8.4
> transfer immediately after a 8.2 transfer instead of reserving one /16 fo
Hi Kevin,
I am quite confused by John's explanation too.
It seems ARIN always provides plenty of information meaning nothing.
Same happens to ask HM, HM will always reply neutrally and I still cannot
know it is yes or no!
However, in basis of john's reply i will rephrase his explanation as the
f
On Apr 4, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On 14-04-04 03:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Steven Ryerse
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
>>> minimum which has been set by this community whic
On 14-04-04 03:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a
/22. Always!
Depends… End-user /24, ISP mult
Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwal...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 5:13 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Morizot Timothy S; David Huberman; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppm
On Apr 4, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
>
>> With an exhausted IPv4 pool, there are no "pool limitations at the
>> time of allocation" as there are no allocations. ARIN's role in IPv4 is
>> primarily the third goal above: registry accuracy.
>>
>>
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
> minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a
> /22. Always!
Depends… End-user /24, ISP multi-homed /22, ISP non-multi-homed /20 II
...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Morizot Timothy S
> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 8:47 AM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Huberman [mailto:david.huber...@microsoft.com]
>&g
On Apr 4, 2014, at 7:31 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> ARIN is a registry, not a regulator. The more you guys want to
> build in rules that are anti-competitive and blind to the market
> reality, the more inaccurate Whois gets.
Operating a registry in a manner that is fair to all means that there
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
> If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
> minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a
> /22. Always!
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
> If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
> minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a
> /22. Always!
>
> If an org wants larger than a /22 they need to be able to demonstr
-Original Message-
> With an exhausted IPv4 pool, there are no "pool limitations at the
> time of allocation" as there are no allocations. ARIN's role in IPv4 is
> primarily the third goal above: registry accuracy.
>
> That's why I advocate removing needs-basis from transfers in a pos
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-Original Message-
From: Morizot Timothy S [mailto:timothy.s.mori...@irs.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 1:32 PM
To: Steven Ryerse; David Huberman; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Diges
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Ryerse [mailto:srye...@eclipse-networks.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:26 PM
>
> ARIN should not be in the business of turning down resource requests if they
> have the resources to allocate - EVER. Doing so is arbitrary and
> discriminatory. A
arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
Hi Scott,
Thank you for the reply. Please allow me to explain why I keep repeating that
ARIN is not a regulator. I believe ARIN only exists to serve the network
operator community. It has been tasked to do so via the
arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Morizot Timothy S
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 8:47 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
> -Original Message-
> From: David Huberman [mailto:david.huber...@mi
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:21 AM, David Huberman
wrote:
> Today, however, RFC2050 has been deprecated by RFC7020. RFC7020
> lays out three primary goals:
> - Allocation Pool Management
> - Hierarchical Allocation
> - Registry Accuracy
> ...
> That's why I advocate removing needs-basis from transfers
> -Original Message-
> From: David Huberman [mailto:david.huber...@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:22 AM
>
> With an exhausted IPv4 pool, there are no "pool limitations at the time
> of allocation" as there are no allocations. ARIN's role in IPv4 is primarily
> the third
allocations and assignments). That's why I haven't touched section 4,
except an attempt prior to ARIN in Phoenix to simplify the section.
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net on behalf of
Morizot Timothy S
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Huberman
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:31 AM
>
> ARIN is a registry, not a regulator.
You keep saying that, but simply asserting it does not make it reality. ARIN
doesn't
Rocky,
Many such 8.2 transfers are efforts to get ARIN's records up to date regarding
M&A transactions that happened years ago. It is not possible for a
no-longer-existent entity to execute the 8.3 transfer, so it has to be 8.2
transferred to the new entity first.
Scott
> On Apr 3, 2014, at
Hello there,
What you are planning to do seems like you try to disguise an 8.3 transfer as
an 8.2 transfer.
I do not think it is appropriate for allowing an 8.2 transfer followed by an
8.3/8.4 transfer.
If the company does not need the IPv4 and the IPv4 are lack of utilisation,
why n
I am out of the office this week and will not be checking email. Please
contact Troy Miller for assistance..
Thank you for contacting me, and have a great day.
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy
55 matches
Mail list logo
