Hi all,
I have revised the text of ARIN 2019-13 ARIN Member Legal Jurisdiction
Exclusion. The previous version provided suggested language to add to
section 9 of NRPM, without an exact location in the text. This version just
places that language directly in the text. the added text is in bold bel
d scope according to the ARIN policy development
> process;
> adjustments to discussion minutes would not mean that a decided action
> is reversed.
>
> I don't actually know whether that is false or not, but even if
> something brought
> to the discussion
Hey ppml,
We received a staff and legal assessment for ARIN 2019-13 ARIN Membership
Legal Jurisdiction requirement a bit ago that presented some serious
concerns about adopting this policy. Based on these concerns I plan to move
to abandon this policy. Just wanted to give the community an opportun
Hello ppml community!
I just wanted to recirculate Draft Policy ARIN 2020-10 for feedback. This
draft policy would remove the requirement that ISPs that already hold
reallocations or reassignments from upstream providers satisfy ARIN's
efficient utilization requirements for those reallocations/rea
anyone looking to expand today. In the latter case, they have the
> advantage of being able to continue using their provider assigned space
> while waiting, so any disadvantage they may face is rather limited and is
> the result of their own past decisions.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
Hi ppml,
We haven't seen a lot of support for ARIN 2020-10 since it's introduction.
This proposal arose out of a policy experience report, but we've seen very
little said about it from anyone that thinks this is a problem that needs
to be solved or that the current text of NRPM here is negatively
Hi all,
Opinions were fairly divided here, but it sounds like a decent number of
you may be open to or prefer if we made adding an abuse URL optional, and
keeping the abuse POC as mandatory. I've edited the text of this draft
policy in that direction. Please let me know what you think.
Amy
Secti
Hi all,
Just wanted to check in with the community to see if there is any feedback
on our latest draft of 2021-7. We've adjusted the language to clear up the
problem statement and clarify that an optional abuse field for a
machine-readable URI will be added to the abuse POC.
*Problem Statement:*
Hi all,
Having spent a substantial amount of time over the past decade thinking
about how to manage this exact conflict, I figured I weigh in. I am
currently serving out the remainder of my final year on the AC, so I really
don't have a stake here in terms of trying to get re-elected, but I think
