Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

Kevin, I agree that statistical data should be used in this case to validate that the problem exists. Not only do non-disclosures prevent ARIN from presenting most evidence of specific cases, but ARIN acknowledges that there may be specific instances where transferring out a block received f

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

e general idea of this policy, however, I think we need to fully consider all the possibilities on how to adjust this policy. But, lets not forget overall this has been a very effective policy. Thanks.      On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:31 AM Tom Fantacone <mailto:t...@iptrading.com>

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

Hi Bill, At 06:35 PM 2/28/2019, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM ARIN wrote: > A significant percentage of organizations that receive blocks > from the waiting list subsequently issue these blocks to other > organizations via 8.3 or 8.4 transfers shortly after the one year

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

Chris, The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to be a no brainer (the waiting period is meant to apply to allocations only under section 4).  I assume ARIN staff is already interpreting it this way since that was the intent of the section.  So I wouldn't sever it unless the full poli

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

ing list policy, not the receipt of resources from it. > On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Tom Fantacone <mailto:t...@iptrading.com> wrote: > > Chris, > > The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to be a no brainer (the > waiting period is m

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

It's a good question, and I also thought it would best be handled by ARIN during implementation. Andrew, am I right in assuming that ARIN is under no obligation to follow the current policy for organizations on the waiting list if this new policy is implemented?  When they joined the waiting li

[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

When ARIN originally suspended the waiting list and we were asked for input on ways to curtail abuse of the waiting list, the evidence of abuse was largely statistical. Namely, there were organizations receiving addresses from the waiting list and transferring them out just after 1 year, org

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

At 06:18 PM 5/15/2019, John Curran wrote: On 15 May 2019, at 2:47 PM, Tom Fantacone wrote: > If we remove the waiting list activity of this one fraudster, how much > "statistically likely" fraud is left? > Was this one bad actor so bad that he accounted for almost all the li

Re: [arin-ppml] Of interest?

On Sat, 18 May 2019 20:57:02 -0400 John Curran wrote Ronald - ARIN requires the verification of organization as an active, legally registered business, in good standing, within the ARIN region. This does involved confirming the the incorporation of the b

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Keeping in mind that the original suspension of the waiting list and calls for restrictions was based upon statistical evidence that multiple actors were committing waiting list fraud, and that we've subsequently learned it was really one bad actor with multiple Orgs/identities, who has been cau

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

No - oppose.  But I would support it if the 60 month waiting period was reduced to 12 or 24 months.  60 months means companies who no longer need the resources will just sit on them till they can sell them.  Not an efficient way to get them into the hands of those who need them. And also that i

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

I found the wording of the Problem Statement on this one a bit confusing. However, after deciphering the effect of the actual policy change I support it. Essentially, all returned IPv4 space will no longer go to the waiting list but will supplement the 4.10 reserved pool used to enhance IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

s.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/so-long-last-8-and-thanks-for-all-the-allocations I'm also sympathetic to new entrants, but don't see the current waiting list as a great help to them vs. the 4.10 pool or the transfer market, both of which allow you your allocation in a timely fashion. Best Reg

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

At 02:20 PM 11/6/2019, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: If you choose to ignore IPv6, I think it is reasonable for ARIN to tell you no new IPv4 addresses for you. Why is that reasonable? I think it's reasonable that an organization may choose to deploy IPv6. I also think it's reasonable that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

, Jordi @jordipalet I'm sure China mandating IPv6 to ISPs increases utilization, just as their one-child policy reduces population growth, but I want none of it. Let the protocols fall where they may. Regards, Tom Fantacone ___ ARIN-PPML Yo

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I oppose the policy requiring IPv6 implementation either as part of an IPv4 transfer or receipt of IPv4 on the waiting list.  Others have correctly pointed out that the policy will not have the desired effect of encouraging IPv6 adoption, but my main objection is that it's an attempt to coerce b

Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2

Well, since you asked, I do support the petition. Tom FantaconeIPTrading.com --- Original Message --- >From: Martin Hannigan[mailto:hanni...@gmail.com] Sent: 1/13/2021 5:20:04 PM To : arin-ppml@arin.net Cc : Subject : RE: Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2

Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2

based on the essential unfairness of harming dozens of legitimate players in order to prevent potential fraud of a few.  But I don't want to put words in their mouths.  I welcome their input and look forward to their participation in the future. Regards, Tom Fantacone IPTrading.com

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

need for it based on his experience with hundreds of real world cases. Regards, Tom Fantacone On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:32:36 -0400 John Curran wrote On 21 Sep 2021, at 10:25 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote: Hi Isaiah, Thank you for yo

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

I support the proposal as written. It facilitates the provision of a valuable service to a large swath of the ARIN community, namely the ability of network operators with an operational need to lease IPv4 addresses from 3rd party lessors at a fraction of the cost of purchasing those addresse

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

would not have made sense when there was a free pool, but it excludes waiting list addresses and so covers that base. Regards, Tom Fantacone On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:31:47 -0500 William Herrin wrote On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:14 AM Tom Fantacone <mailto:t...@iptrading.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

ervice that ARIN does not. Regards, Tom Fantacone On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:42:52 -0500 William Herrin wrote On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:40 AM Tom Fantacone <mailto:t...@iptrading.com> wrote: > If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I got to ARIN and &g

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

above, or because they want to multi-home, or because they want the flexibility of moving providers without having to renumber, or for whatever reason network operators currently purchase IPv4 space on the transfer market vs. trying to get them from their upstream. Regards, Tom Fantacone

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

he Officer Attestation is a simpler form signed by the Buyer attesting to the accuracy of the justification data and doesn't require notarization.  That's the one the draft policy seeks to eliminate. Best Regards, Tom Fantacone On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 00:41:46 -0400 Owen DeLong v

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

. Le samedi 25 juin 2022, Tom Fantacone <mailto:t...@iptrading.com> a écrit : Owen, This is actually the link for the sample Officer Attestation: Hi Tom, Thanks for adding more clarifications, brother :-)    https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/OfficerAttestation_wa

[arin-ppml] Tenfold fee increases?

such magnitude. Hopefully before our fee goes up another 1,000%. Regards, Tom Fantacone ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your ma

Re: [arin-ppml] Tenfold fee increases?

e feedback from those who made the decisions on these fee hikes. Regards, Tom Fantacone On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 10:19:59 -0400 Heather Schiller wrote --- ARIN moderators -- please consider moving or closing this thread.   Folks, ARIN fees are not set through the Policy Devel

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID

g ID) is an identifier assigned to an entity that holds resources or may attempt to receive resources in the ARIN registry." Regards, Tom Fantacone On Tue, 21 May 2024 12:28:05 -0400 ARIN wrote --- On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Dra