On 9/12/13 13:35 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
X. Resource Justification within ARIN Region
Organizations requesting Internet number resources from ARIN must
provide proof that they (1) are an active business entity legally
operating within the ARIN service region, and (2) are operating a
network located within the ARIN service region. In addition to meeting
all other applicable policy requirements, a plurality of resources
requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and
customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located
outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region.
The same technical infrastructure or customers cannot be used to justify
resources in more than one RIR.
More broadly, I would suggest that further revision of this draft drop
all concern for the legal status of the registrant. I think that
better addressed as an ARIN business matter. Instead, focus on the
degree to which the equipment on which the ARIN number resources are
employed is physically present within the ARIN region.
The details are definitely an ARIN business matter, but ARIN frequently
get's asked "where does the policy require that?" And below you ask
about "what the author was trying to achieve(?)", Legal Presence within
the region was one of the key issues for the authors.
Plurality seems like an odd choice of word above. The implication is
that if 21% of the equipment for which I use ARIN addresses is in
North America, and as long as my use in each of the other four regions
is 20% or less, I'm good to go.
Well more precisely the lowest possible use within the ARIN region is
some fraction greater than 20%, with less than or equal to 20% in the
other four regions. While possible in reality, this is much more of a
contrived example that something you would expect to see regularly in
the real world. However, if you were only operating within the ARIN
region and one other region you would need greater than 50% in the ARIN
region and less that 50% in the other region, a simple majority.
That doesn't seem to be what the author was trying to achieve, does it?
I'd agree it wasn't what the authors were originally thinking, but if
you review the earlier comments there were several people that objected
to a 50% majority, and plurality was suggested as an alternative, as
discussed in the Advisory Council Comments sections.
In discussions with the authors their primary intent was that there be
significant use in region. Plurality, is by no means perfect, for many
it is way too much of a restriction and for other not enough, but it
seems like a reasonable compromise. While the authors would prefer a
50% majority, they seemed to feel it was a reasonable compromise.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
