Below is a staff and legal assessment for ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy
Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification.
The draft policy text is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html
Regards,
Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet N
rds,
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "David Huberman"
To: "John Curran"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow
Start and Simplified Needs Verification
John wrote:
A transfer
Speculators and hoarders could already be locking up space via contracts that
aren't even transfers (yet)... And yet I haven't seen much of that going on
either. In fact, offers to buy or lease (or any other contract regarding) space
are coming in less often than a year ago, if anything.
Matthe
John wrote:
> A transfer policy mechanism which allows receipt up to a limit based on
> current holdings provides far more certainty for those who wish to plan
> for the future, as they can go to market knowing precisely that limit.
What is the virtue of a limit?
It's not the prevention of s
$SEARCH_ENGINE has to go through the same policy hurdles as Dave’s Tire Shop if
$SEARCH_ENGINE is complying with policy.
Eliminating all policy hurdles from everyone is _NOT_ a solution to the fact
that some organizations choose to eschew policy and thus community interest in
favor of self-inte
On Sep 22, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>
>>
>> John, we're on the same page here, I think.
>>
>>> I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand
>>> the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from
>>> doing transfers and subject to architect
ct: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
> and Simplified Needs Verification
>
> Good morning PPML,
>
> I just want to clarify that when Milton says "I want to make it clear that I
> will
> not count that as serious or justifiable oppositio
On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:38 AM, David Huberman
wrote:
> You're right, of course. If I'm going to advocate that the current "24-month
> planning horizon" is good, then I have to defend why ARIN staff looking at
> ANY forward-looking data is good for network operations. But doesn't that
> also
/
> -Original Message-
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:john.sweet...@twcable.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:44 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; 'Kevin Kargel'; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Sta
23, 2014 9:44 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
> and Simplified Needs Verification
>
> Good morning PPML,
>
> I just want to clarify that when Milton says "I w
Good morning PPML,
I just want to clarify that when Milton says "I want to make it clear that
I will not count that as serious or justifiable opposition to a policy
proposal in any AC deliberations.² he is only speaking for Milton and not
for any of the other members of the AC. There are currently
cur...@arin.net]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:53 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Owen DeLong; Kevin Blumberg; arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
and Simplified Needs Verification
On Sep 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Da
> -Original Message-
> I do not believe IP as commodity is good for either operators, industry or the
> community. It will however serve as a wealth generator for a select few,
> which again is not the objective of ARIN. The good or bad of IP as a
> commodity is probably not the discuss
On Sep 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> No one participating in the RIR system should be prevented from doing any
> bona fide transfer. In the 8.3 world, network operators must be free to buy
> and sell IP addresses as it fits their business plans.
David -
The above premise
?Hiya Matthew,
Thanks for the reply. I want to respond to one item in your post:
> I suspect the challenge here is that not everyone
> is in agreement about what constitutes a
> "bona fide" transfer, as opposed to a land
> grab. If we look at land allocations in california
> as any indicatio
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:05 AM, David Huberman <
david.huber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> John, we're on the same page here, I think.
>
> > I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand
> > the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from doing
> > transfer
>
> John, we're on the same page here, I think.
>
> > I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand
> > the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from
> > doing transfers and subject to architecture-specific constraints in
> > order to receive approval.
John, we're on the same page here, I think.
> I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand
> the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from doing
> transfers and subject to architecture-specific constraints in order to
> receive approval.
No one pa
On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:12 AM, David Huberman
wrote:
> Regarding TPIA and MDN, John wrote:
>
>> If it were to be adopted, it would provide for any organization at 80%
>> overall utilization
>> to transfer at least as much address space as is presently held.
>
> If I have a MDN buildout in To
-ppml-boun...@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:25 AM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> List
(arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draf
Regarding TPIA and MDN, John wrote:
> If it were to be adopted, it would provide for any organization at 80%
> overall utilization
> to transfer at least as much address space as is presently held.
If I have a MDN buildout in Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, Winnipeg, and
Vancouver, and Toronto h
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20
Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification
ARIN-2014-20 has been revised.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html
Regards,
Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Int
After reviewing both 2014-20 and 2014-14, I think Mike Burns is correct.
2014-20 (Transfer policy slow start...) is an attempt to simplify and automate
needs assessments for transfers. But 2014-14 (Removing needs test for small
transfers) is a much cleaner and simpler way of doing that. I see 20
er entrants, and ignores
>> networks which have irregular growth but recently did well with a product
>> offering and need to quickly deploy a lot of new capacity.
>>
>> Put this all together, and I find myself opposed to 2014-20. I heartily
>> applaud Jason for tryin
average of 80% utilization, as measured under section 4,
> across the aggregate of all addresses that are currently allocated,
> assigned, reallocated, or reassigned to, or otherwise in use by, the
> organization.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> &g
sel against regarding silence as approval.)
Regards
Mike Burns
From: Jason Schiller
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:13 PM
To: ow...@nysernet.org ; Kevin Blumberg ; David Farmer
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft
On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:40 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> Kevin's very cogent call-outs were an eye opener for me. TPIA has gotten the
> short-shrift from ARIN policy for a long time, and it's a very complex
> technical situation that needs careful thought. MDN is a well-practiced
> policy that
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:25 AM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
and Simplified Needs Verification
I haven't weighed in on this, but I will now.
I remain oppo
; reallocated, or reassigned to, or otherwise in use by, the organization.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
> Sent: September 16, 2014 10:45 PM
> To: Kevin Blumberg
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.n
e by, the organization.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: September 16, 2014 10:45 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
and Simplified Needs Ver
Kevin,
I am not sure I grasp the question. If the organization is requesting a
direct allocation/assignment from ARIN then they must qualify under 4.x.
If the organization is requesting approval for transfer space, then they
must qualify under 8.x.
I don't immediately see a case where you might
Jason,
In a situation that a request would be approved under a 4.x section, but not in
8.x, which would take precedence?
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (
fers smaller than a /16, once per year.
>>>
>>> I am against further un-necessary clutter in the NRPM, and if we seek to
>>> match every unknown and unknowable vagary of the impending transfer market
>>> with new policy, we open the door to a virtual tax code of text.
David,
I do not believe current ARIN policy / process will approve a future
looking two year need that is greater than the past 1 year utilization. I
am fairly certain this is not the case for ISPs, I have less experience as
an end-user that regularly go back for IP space.
At either rate I do no
Thank you for the detailed reply, Jason, and for expanding on my simplistic
scenarios.
Maybe I'm tired, but I don't understand a fundamental point. Under 2014-20, to
transfer a /16 into their account (where a /16 is their believed 24-month
need), they need to do three transfers over 180 days?
raft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow
Start and Simplified Needs Verification
It has been a week, and there has been no discussion on this thread.
I take the silence to mean the suggested "option 2" rewrite is
non-controversial and meets all of Bill's conc
sorry I messed up the dates...
In the first example for ABC Trucking those should have all been 2014 dates:
/24 - 06/19/2014
/22 - 07/10/2014
/21 - 08/01/2014
/20 - 08/22/2014
The idea being all their ISP space was within a 90 day look back window.
Sorry for the confusion.
__Jason
On Mon,
Comments in line.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM, David Huberman <
david.huber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> First, a direct reply to Jason, who wrote:
> >So we wanted some requirement to prevent someone
> >from spinning up Orgs just to get space with no intention of using it.
>
> I don't like writ
amp;A transfers, direct
>> allocations or assignments from ARIN, or reallocations or reassignments
>> from an ISP. That total will be divided by the number of months in the
>> look-back window to calculate the organization’s monthly average use rate.
>>
>> 8.3.2.3.2.1?
>>
>
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Thank you.
>
> The intent was NOT to remove the requirement for in-region recipients of
> transfers to sign an RSA.
>
> My apologies.
>
...
> Option 2 - single bullet for "meet ARIN policy" and "sign RSA" (8.3 as the
> model text)
in Blumberg ; David Farmer
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow
Start and Simplified Needs Verification
It has been a week, and there has been no discussion on this thread.
I take the silence to mean the suggested "opti
First, a direct reply to Jason, who wrote:
>So we wanted some requirement to prevent someone
>from spinning up Orgs just to get space with no intention of using it.
I don't like writing policy which tries to outsmart scammers. Scammers
represent a fraction of a percent of ARIN transactions. We
10:44:20 AM
> *To:* Scott Leibrand
> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy
> Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification
>
> Scott,
>
> I believe the text is officially out of Mike Joseph's and my control...
>
ds
>
> Mike Burns
>
>
> *From:* Jason Schiller
> *Sent:* Friday, September 12, 2014 12:13 PM
> *To:* ow...@nysernet.org ; Kevin Blumberg ; David
> Farmer
> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy
> Slow Start
of
Jason Schiller
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 10:44:20 AM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
and Simplified Needs Verification
Scott,
I believe the text is officially out of Mike Joseph's and my co
Scott,
I believe the text is officially out of Mike Joseph's and my control... but
to answer your question...
I am suggesting we take one of the three edits as a modification to the
draft, so it would be the whole draft with some minor difference to what
text in the current 8.3 and 8.4 gets remov
berg ; David Farmer
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
and Simplified Needs Verification
It has been a week, and there has been no discussion on this thread.
I take the silence to mean the suggested "option 2" r
I'm still a bit confused. Is the option 2 text below what you're proposing as
the complete proposal, replacing the many paragraphs and sections of your
original proposal? Or are you just replacing some of it? Can you post the full
resulting policy statement?
Thanks,
Scott
> On Sep 12, 2014, a
It has been a week, and there has been no discussion on this thread.
I take the silence to mean the suggested "option 2" rewrite is
non-controversial and meets all of Bill's concerns.
I also take the silence to mean that all three options I have suggested all
result in the same implementation,
an
Bill,
Thank you.
The intent was NOT to remove the requirement for in-region recipients of
transfers to sign an RSA.
My apologies.
There is a lot or parallel structure in 8.3 and 8.4 and in my mind 8.4 is
identical to 8.3 except 8.4 has a clause "Except when the recipient is out
of region then t
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:55:58PM -0400, ARIN wrote:
> On 28 August 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-212 Transfer policy slow start and simplified needs
> verification" as a Draft Policy.
>
. . .
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20
> Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified N
On 28 August 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-212
Transfer policy slow start and simplified needs verification" as a Draft
Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html
You are encouraged to discuss the
52 matches
Mail list logo
