I thought folks in this forum might be interested in possibly replying to the matter in this note from ppml, and got the author's permission to forward it to this list. I'm trying to set the Mail-Followup-To header on this note to the ppml@arin.net list, not sure if I'm getting it right, but I think it would be appropriate if any replies were directed to the ppml list, as that's what ARIN is watching for this solicitation of public comment. ----- Forwarded message from ginny listman <ginny@arin.net> ----- From: ginny listman <ginny@arin.net> Subject: Just to clarify Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:20:07 -0500 (EST) To: ppml@arin.net Hi, my name is Ginny Listman. As of early December, I am the new Director of Engineering here at ARIN. In a meeting yesterday, to discuss database changes, the following policy issue came up. Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can assign/allocate further on down. In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate. Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't be a big deal. However, would there ever be a situation where the upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating? Should ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream? We have be processing these request because we do not want to delay the downstream's business. Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a request? ----- End forwarded message ----- I believe this matter is on-topic for nanog; if I'm mistaken my apologies, and please do let me know. Note that this forwarding to nanog is my fault and not the fault of the original author. -Bennett