My former email on this subject still stands. There should NOT be
utilization language in the 8.2 transfers, for all the reasons I listed
before, and with potential options if there is dread of some type of abuse
of 8.2.
Whether or not and 8.2 transfer occurs is not the point, the point is the
lan
Hi Azinger,
My standpoint to this proposal is neutral. Someone inside ARIN told that
AOL has done the 8.2 transfer recently. The so-called conflict and
utilisation rate test is just some bureau language left there without
preventing this transfer.
ARIN is so nice to talk and assist on the 8.2
YES support. This policy never should have existed.
As someone who has personally handled 5 different network purchases and
integration of those networks, this policy is problematic. The process of
integration requires more address space than what is ever currently in use with
a purchase. If yo
On 3/24/14, 13:08 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 21, 2014, at 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost
regarding business records, and it is incumbent
on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
for changes.
On Apr 3, 2014, at 7:43 PM, xiaofan yang wrote:
> thanks for your inspiring reply. Now i know that we have the "ownership" of
> those IPs.as you are one of the AC, i take your reply seriously and also
> this is good news for the community, especially for those legacy holders, if
> the hol
On Apr 3, 2014, at 7:33 PM, xiaofan yang
mailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John,
In basis of your reply, if the block is underutilised,ARIN will either ask the
company to return the IPs or transfer to other third party via 8.3 transfer
after our 8.2 transfer.
Correct.
Say we have tw
Niki
In no way should you take Milton's reply as an official stance or answer from
the AC. He should have made it quite clear that he was speaking only as Milton
and in anyway representing the AC.
Thank you
John S
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 3, 2014, at 4:45 PM, "xiaofan yang"
mailto:nikiyan.
Hi Milton,
thanks for your inspiring reply. Now i know that we have the "ownership"
of those IPs.as you are one of the AC, i take your reply seriously and
also this is good news for the community, especially for those legacy
holders, if the holder of ARIN non-legacy IPs can have the "ownershi
Hi John,
In basis of your reply, if the block is underutilised,ARIN will either ask
the company to return the IPs or transfer to other third party via 8.3
transfer after our 8.2 transfer.
Say we have two /16 after this 8.2 transfer, what if we only transfer one
/16 to the other third party v
Niki:
For most economists and lawyers, the definition of a "property right" involves
the right to use, the right to exclude others from using, and the right to
transfer. As John's message makes clear, all those rights are present in the
number block lease you get from ARIN. So although the RSA m
On Apr 2, 2014, at 4:27 PM, xiaofan yang wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I have further enquiry about ARIN 8.2 process.
>
> Number one:I am also worried about the costs of doing a 8.2 transfer followed
> by a 8.3 transfer. I wonder if I will have to involve the legal help to deal
> with ARIN legal.
Hi John,
I have further enquiry about ARIN 8.2 process.
Number one:I am also worried about the costs of doing a 8.2 transfer
followed by a 8.3 transfer. I wonder if I will have to involve the legal
help to deal with ARIN legal. In my case I bought a company that now is
out of business. How co
On Apr 1, 2014, at 10:00 PM, xiaofan yang wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your reply. So if we do not want to return the address, we can
> have them transferred for sale?
> and ARIN will not treat our 8.2 transfer as the disguise of 8.3 transfer if
> 8.3 transfer come next after the 8.2 t
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. So if we do not want to return the address, we can
have them transferred for sale?
and ARIN will not treat our 8.2 transfer as the disguise of 8.3 transfer
if 8.3 transfer come next after the 8.2 transfer?
Niki
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM, John Curran wro
On Apr 1, 2014, at 7:34 PM, xiaofan yang
mailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John,
We would like to do a 8.2transfer because of our restructure.
However, the transferred ips are underutilized. based on your comments in the
list, it seems that if those ips are lack of utilisation, ARIN wil
*Hi John, *
*We would like to do a 8.2transfer because of our restructure. *
*However, the transferred ips are underutilized. based on your comments
in the list, it seems that if those ips are lack of utilisation, ARIN will
ask us to return those ips or ARIN will not approve our transfer ?*
Hello,
In discussing opposition to 2014-9, and why audited needs-basis is still very
much important,
Owen laid out the following point in support of needs assessments in NRPM 8.2:
> 1. To raise the visibility when an 8.3 transfer is being attempted through
> structures designed
> to disguise i
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:51 PM
>
> On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> >
> >
> > Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost regarding business
> > r
On Mar 21, 2014, at 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost
>> regarding business records, and it is incumbent
>> on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
>> for changes. Updating ARIN records (
On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost
regarding business records, and it is incumbent
on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
for changes. Updating ARIN records (and the cost
of doing so) is no different, and should not have a
spec
On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:58 AM, John Curran wrote:
> (Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9, which removes the need
> for ARIN to seek utilization during M & M transfers),
Apologies for the typo... should read "M & A" (as in
Merger and Acquisition address transfers per NRPM 8.2)
ARIN welcomes transfers of
On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Meows wrote:
> As a watcher of this since it's inception I have to jump in here as this is
> getting way off the rails, gosh it is reminding me of the affordable health
> care act no one can afford.
>
> Point one RE:
>
> As an ARIN Hostmaster for 10 years, I saw a
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>
>
> Any M&A, or organization changes, have a cost
> regarding business records, and it is incumbent
> on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
> for changes. Updating ARIN records (and the cost
> of doing so) is no different, and should not have a
> special "o
n.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
On Mar 20, 2014, at 13:01 , Heather Schiller wrote:
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community feedback on
the proposed text.
Aside from the gen
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> I don't see a *documented* 40% abandon rate on 8.2 transfer requests as "fear
> mongering". I strongly suspect that every single one of those abandoned
> requests is a case where a M&A *actually happened* and yet, because it was
> abandoned
On Mar 20, 2014, at 23:04 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 3/20/2014 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think fear mongering about the “usefulness of the registry” by those that
>> seek to eliminate all policy enforcement in the registry should be seen for
>> what it is and that we as a community m
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
..
> Matthew -
>
> A typical example
.
> At this point, some number of requesters will abandon the process.
I can, for some values of understanding, understand this.
But I think that is a failure by the requester, not ARIN,
and we shoul
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> If they don't want to deal with ARIN (and I agree, I've seen a lot of that),
> why even start the 8.2 transfer process? All this says is that in addition to
> that 40% abandon rate, we *also* have people not even starting the process.
Matth
On 3/20/2014 8:35 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
In my buy-merger-sell experience, most companies don't complete
transfers post M&A because they dont want to deal with ARIN. It's not
worth the difficulty. Accuracy of the registry suffers again.
If they don't want to deal with ARIN (and I agre
On 3/20/2014 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I see several potential downsides, not the least of which is a strong
motivation to disguise 8.3 transfers as 8.2 style transactions.
That's been happening since before there was an 8.3. What does this
change? As has been pointed out, the "reclaim" o
On 3/20/2014 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think fear mongering about the “usefulness of the registry” by those
that seek to eliminate all policy enforcement in the registry should
be seen for what it is and that we as a community must make a decision
whether we want to have reasonable policies
In my buy-merger-sell experience, most companies don't complete transfers
post M&A because they dont want to deal with ARIN. It's not worth the
difficulty. Accuracy of the registry suffers again.
Best,
Martin
On Thursday, March 20, 2014, Sweeting, John
wrote:
> Hi David
>
> I usually do not
David Farmer wrote:
> Technically, there is only one word in the paragraph in question that is
> fundamentally in conflict with the RSA, that is "reclaim". Also, with
> the suspension of sections 4.6 and 4.7 and ARIN-2014-10, I'd suggest
> that "aggregate" will essentially become a NO-OP.
>
> So
ly running the
>> registry of
> ARIN -- the paragraph I propose to be removed is NON-OPERATIONAL. It cannot
> be enforced under the terms of the RSA.
>
> The community, therefore, I believe is compelled to address the conflict.
>
> I hope this summary helps.
>
>
On 3/20/14, 15:01 , Heather Schiller wrote:
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community
feedback on the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
Do you concur with or have any comment on the problem statement?
The problem statemen
On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:28 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> Last email from me, I promise. I don't want to abuse the hospitality of the
> list.
>
> Owen, I agree with you when you write that our policies generally work well
> and we shouldn't muck with them.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t muck w
On Mar 21, 2014, at 4:48 AM, David Huberman
wrote:
> Think about that for a moment please: legitimate M&A activity occurred, but
> Whois never
> got updated. That's a failure of the system. Why does it fail?
Excellent question.
> The common scenario is straight forward:
>
> 1. Compa
2014 3:11:44 PM
To: Michael Peddemors
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between
RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On 14-03-20 01:48 PM, David Huberman wrote:
>> John Cur
On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On 14-03-20 01:48 PM, David Huberman wrote:
>> John Curran can give a more accurate and nuanced history, but as best I can
>> recall, ARIN
>> tried to bring more legacy registration holders into the registry system by
>> offering a
>> Leg
I'm not sure I see an actual conflict between 8.2 and the RSA. This is the
relevant line, I think, from the RSA.
"However, ARIN may refuse to permit transfers or additional allocations of
number resources
to Holder if Holder's Included Number Resources are not utilized in accordance
with Policy
(GFS)
-Original Message-
From: McTim [mailto:dogwal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:00 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Owen DeLong; Heather Schiller; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
Hi
On 14-03-20 01:48 PM, David Huberman wrote:
John Curran can give a more accurate and nuanced history, but as best I can
recall, ARIN
tried to bring more legacy registration holders into the registry system by
offering a
Legacy Registration Services Agreement. One of the takeaways from that ini
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> In contrast to my friend Owen, not only do I believe there is a very serious
> issue, but I believe this
> proposal is necessary for ARIN to have any hope of being relevant in the
> years to come. I don't
> mean to use that kind
mary helps.
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Heather Schiller
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Polic
Thank you for looking that up and inserting it, very useful!
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Michael Peddemors
wrote:
> On 14-03-20 01:01 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:
>>
>> Remove from 8.2:
>> "In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no
>> longer justified under ARIN
We can work that out in operator groups. ARIN is a steward of numbers,
not a regulator of operators and their routing policies.
Not adopting this will contribute another to the pile of existing
reasons as to why the registry is hugely inaccurate.
Best,
-M<
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Aar
On 14-03-20 01:01 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:
Remove from 8.2:
"In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no
longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the
transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work
with the resource h
My issue with this proposal is that it might create an expectation that
operators will start routing that space. I just see a s**t storm when
Customer A gets a /29 and no one can reach it. I see it, in the long
term, generating a lot of problems.
Aaron
On 3/20/2014 3:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrot
On Mar 20, 2014, at 13:01 , Heather Schiller wrote:
> As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community feedback
> on the proposed text.
>
> Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
>
> Do you concur with or have any comment on the problem statement?
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community feedback
on the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
Do you concur with or have any comment on the problem statement?
If you support the problem statement, do you support removing secti
On 20 February 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-199 Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization
Requirements" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_9.html
You are encouraged to discuss th
51 matches
Mail list logo
