Hi all -
Alyssa and I are shepherding this on behalf of the AC. Given the varying,
thoughtful opinions, I'd like to prod to see if anyone else has thoughts
one way or the other on this draft.
Anita
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:26 PM Alyssa Moore wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There was some great discussi
Hi all,
Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the
comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and
5 against.
Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on
total holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this
I'm replying to the last message in this thread.
Please note (and you can refer to the Nov AC minutes) that organizations
that are currently on the waitlist won’t be affected, because the next
disbursement of v4 would fulfill all the exempted orgs as well as the ones
remaining on the list. The ove
The minutes should be published soon. They were sent around for review
shortly after the meeting.
There was not as robust a discussion of this as there was during the Nov
meeting. There was some discussion with John Curran of the definition of
fairness, and that's captured in the notes coming out
Owen, IPv6 hesitation is very common in schools and even at many
universities. Part of it is that with smaller staff, it's generally not
risen up as a priority. (Sorry to be off topic.)
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:26 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Unless you consider 10+ year old technology “new”, IPv6 d
Hi Bill -
I'm one of the AC Shepards on this one. This presentation on Day 2 of the
ARIN 47 meetings lays it out with the changes highlighted (please ignore
Section 10.3 as that has been taken out of the draft) but let us know if
there are still questions. See mid way through Day 2 - you can click
< (asking for the ASO)
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:57 PM A N wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill -
>> I'm one of the AC Shepards on this one. This presentation on Day 2 of the
>> ARIN 47 meetings lays it out with the changes highlighted (please ignore
>> Sect
Hello I'm co-shepherd of this Draft that was posted 12/16. Any thoughts
from the community?
Draft Policy ARIN-2021-8: Deprecation of the 'Autonomous System
Originations' Field
Problem Statement:
In the last two decades ARIN has developed multiple services which provide
mechanisms for Internet
Hello -
Taking off my ARIN AC hat and speaking personally, I oppose this.
I believe - even though it's not perfect - keeping the requirement in place
provides a form of risk mitigation both for organizations and for ARIN.
-Anita
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:51 AM Joe Provo wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
Agree with Owen - "policy" is not the optimal word. "The experiment’s
outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible policy”.
Most of the time, the results of an experiment don't end up in a policy.
They end up in a research paper, or end up being used by a company/lab. I
think the spirit
Nick -
That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
in there
, I have
>> a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:09 PM Nick Nugent wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experi
On behalf of the ARIN AC Policy Experience Working Group, and in response
to the Policy Implementation and Experience Report presented at ARIN 51,
we're looking for input on a possible proposed revamp of NRPM Section 8.5.6
"Efficient Utilization of Previous Blocks".
The crux of the issue is there
Thanks for the comments so far, it's given us shepards some good input to
further refine this draft. Any other opinions on wording?
-Anita
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:47 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
> Agreed… Legal requirements always supersede any sort of non-statuto
Buildings/real estate too?On May 3, 2024, at 9:20 PM, Matt Erculiani wrote:Kind of sounds like the new investor(s) will basically just slide into the first lien position for all of Cogent.Without "Cogent’s IPv4 addresses, customer IPv4 address leases and customer accounts receivables" I'm not sur
I also like the suggested change to "Critical Internet Infrastructure".
(There has been a lot of discussion regarding the FCCs use of the term
"Critical Infrastructure" being too broad. I think using "critical internet
infrastructure" is a good way to be specific about what the policy is
addressin
Former AC member here. I can tell you that there was at least one proposal
(eventually got adopted) on which my co-shephard and I had a call with the
author to confirm their intent, did some re-writing to clarify that intent,
ran it back past the author and had some back and forth to ensure the
cri
I don't think it's a dumb question at all. There are too many practical
obstacles with getting a commitment to move to IPv6 (being legally binding,
what if the company shifts strategy, enforcement, etc) that would preclude
this as a requirement.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 3:15 PM Matthew Cowen
wrote
18 matches
Mail list logo
