ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
Please keep in mind this policy is a result of discussions held at the ARIN public policy meeting in Calgary earlier this year. The policy does state ARIN will accept IP-based hosting as justification for an allocation if an exception is warranted. ARIN is looking to the community to define these exceptions and finds the discussions being held here to be very helpful. This information will be included in the policy discussion at the upcoming ARIN public policy meeting. These discussions may create changes to the current policy, perhaps by clearly defining a list of exceptions, or may even eliminate the new policy altogether. Your feedback on this mailing list and at the upcoming public policy meeting is important. Information about the upcoming public policy meeting can be found at: http://www.arin.net/announcements/memmeet.html Best Regards, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
Please keep in mind this policy is a result of discussions held at the ARIN public policy meeting in Calgary earlier this year.
So who actually goes to these things, and was the new policy a later result of discussions at the meeting, or was there actually some sort of vote at the meeting? i.e. was the policy decision made by one of the ARIN boards or by the ARIN members? Since ARIN subscription customers are, by default, ARIN members, will we be given the opportunity to vote or at least express an opinion on such issues via proxy in the future, or do we have to send a representative in order for our voice to be heard?
The policy does state ARIN will accept IP-based hosting as justification for an allocation if an exception is warranted. ARIN is looking to the community to define these exceptions and finds the discussions being held here to be very helpful. This information will be included
Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules? Nobody knows what constitutes a valid exception. Apparently, even ARIN doesn't know yet. If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who would decide if the thousands of IPs that we and our customers have used for IP based virtual hosts are a valid or wasteful use of IPs?..the individual at ARIN processing our request?
These discussions may create changes to the current policy, perhaps by clearly defining a list of exceptions, or may even eliminate the new policy altogether. Your feedback on this mailing list and at the upcoming public policy meeting is important.
So a policy was announced before it was fully fleshed out. It may get fleshed...or it may get flushed. What was the point? Are you just trying to rattle the cages of every ISP in NA to see how many reactions you can get? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
* jlewis@lewis.org <jlewis@lewis.org> [20000830 21:56]:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
[..]
The policy does state ARIN will accept IP-based hosting as justification for an allocation if an exception is warranted. ARIN is looking to the community to define these exceptions and finds the discussions being held here to be very helpful. This information will be included
Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules? Nobody knows what constitutes a valid exception. Apparently, even ARIN doesn't know yet. If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who would decide if the thousands of IPs that we and our customers have used for IP based virtual hosts are a valid or wasteful use of IPs?..the individual at ARIN processing our request?
These discussions may create changes to the current policy, perhaps by clearly defining a list of exceptions, or may even eliminate the new policy altogether. Your feedback on this mailing list and at the upcoming public policy meeting is important.
So a policy was announced before it was fully fleshed out. It may get fleshed...or it may get flushed. What was the point? Are you just trying to rattle the cages of every ISP in NA to see how many reactions you can get?
That is *exactly* my reaction. There are intelligent people at ARIN no doubt, but somebody dropped the ball on this one. If you put aside the disagreements of the who, what, why of IP-based vs. name-based virtual hosting the fact still remains that it is inconceivable to me that ARIN could create this policy without at least going through the thought process of what might constitute a valid exception *before* putting the rule actually into place. It's great that they're asking for feedback....but why now? W(hy)TF didn't this happen before putting the rule into effect? It makes me wonder what sort of procedures/criteria/training ARIN is actually providing to the individuals that handle the approval process.. Does anyone at ARIN realize that people, their own employees, have to enforce these rules? In order to enforce antyhing it has to be clearly spelled out. I sure hope they're not just expecting their employees to determine "valid exceptions" arbitrarily? That's not fair to anybody--employee, customer, or themselves (since it makes them all look incompetent). I do believe the core intent was *good*. The analysis and solution they came up with is questionable though. And the execution even worse. At the same time, I have this itching thought in the back of my head that makes me question how much I have a right to complain...being as how I haven't attempted to participate in ARIN politics. My defense is that I'm an optimist and was/am expecting a certain level of competence out of the people involved with ARIN that make these decisions. Perhaps that isn't the correct point of view for me to have... -jr ---- Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN] <jrichard@cubicle.net/fix.net/freedom.gen.ca.us/geekresearch.com> Geek Research LLC IP Network Engineering and Consulting
---- Original Message ----- From: <jlewis@lewis.org> To: Richard Jimmerson <richardj@arin.net> Cc: <ppml@arin.net>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:15 AM Subject: Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
Please keep in mind this policy is a result of discussions held at the ARIN public policy meeting in Calgary earlier this year.
So who actually goes to these things, and was the new policy a later result of discussions at the meeting, or was there actually some sort of vote at the meeting? i.e. was the policy decision made by one of the ARIN boards or by the ARIN members? Since ARIN subscription customers are, by default, ARIN members, will we be given the opportunity to vote or at least express an opinion on such issues via proxy in the future, or do we have to send a representative in order for our voice to be heard?
The proposal was posted to the ARIN discuss list prior to the last meeting but since then we have formalized the process a bit more to include a couple of weeks of discussion on the ppml mailing list of all proposed policy changes which attendees of the public policy meeting reached consensus on. This will allow everyone who didn't make it to the meeting to voice their opinion on the proposal before the AC votes.
The policy does state ARIN will accept IP-based hosting as justification for an allocation if an exception is warranted. ARIN is looking to the community to define these exceptions and finds the discussions being held here to be very helpful. This information will be included
Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules? Nobody knows what constitutes a valid exception. Apparently, even ARIN doesn't know yet. If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who would decide if the thousands of IPs that we and our customers have used for IP based virtual hosts are a valid or wasteful use of IPs?..the individual at ARIN processing our request?
We thought it best not to include specific exceptions because although we were aware of several possible exceptions, we didn't want people to feel restricted to just those listed. There could've been some we didn't know about and we wanted to wait until we heard from some of the requesting organizations so we could come up with a more comprehensive list of exceptions.
These discussions may create changes to the current policy, perhaps by clearly defining a list of exceptions, or may even eliminate the new policy altogether. Your feedback on this mailing list and at the upcoming public policy meeting is important.
So a policy was announced before it was fully fleshed out. It may get fleshed...or it may get flushed. What was the point? Are you just trying to rattle the cages of every ISP in NA to see how many reactions you can get?
No, our motivation, as stated above, was to try to give more organizations the benefit of the doubt. But I definitely see how you could have interpreted it differently. We should've been clearer with the policy so allow me to apoligize to all of you for this. Kim Hubbard ex-ARIN President :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
* Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net> [20000831 06:33]:
The proposal was posted to the ARIN discuss list prior to the last meeting but since then we have formalized the process a bit more to include a couple of weeks of discussion on the ppml mailing list of all proposed policy changes which attendees of the public policy meeting reached consensus on. This will allow everyone who didn't make it to the meeting to voice their opinion on the proposal before the AC votes.
Sounds good.
Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules? Nobody knows what constitutes a valid exception. Apparently, even ARIN doesn't know yet. If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who would decide if the thousands of IPs that we and our customers have used for IP based virtual hosts are a valid or wasteful use of IPs?..the individual at ARIN processing our request?
We thought it best not to include specific exceptions because although we were aware of several possible exceptions, we didn't want people to feel restricted to just those listed. There could've been some we didn't know about and we wanted to wait until we heard from some of the requesting organizations so we could come up with a more comprehensive list of exceptions.
This sounds good as well. My only comment would be that while I see the logic behind this, I'd add that even if ARIN does not want to include specific exceptions in the rule, it might be best to discuss and perhaps *informally* have a list of specific ones. This will help the IP community feel a bit less jumpy with these sorts of things (at least it would have appeased me somewhat). Of course, with what you state at the beginning of your e-mail where the discussion period has been lengthened and more formalized, this might have/will likely serve to do exactly as I just stated.
No, our motivation, as stated above, was to try to give more organizations the benefit of the doubt. But I definitely see how you could have interpreted it differently. We should've been clearer with the policy so allow me to apoligize to all of you for this.
Thank you Kim, for the response. -jr ---- Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN] <jrichard@cubicle.net/fix.net/freedom.gen.ca.us/geekresearch.com> Geek Research LLC IP Network Engineering and Consulting
* Josh Richards <jrichard@cubicle.net> [20000831 17:43]:
* Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net> [20000831 06:33]:
We thought it best not to include specific exceptions because although we were aware of several possible exceptions, we didn't want people to feel restricted to just those listed. There could've been some we didn't know about and we wanted to wait until we heard from some of the requesting organizations so we could come up with a more comprehensive list of exceptions.
This sounds good as well. My only comment would be that while I see the logic behind this, I'd add that even if ARIN does not want to include specific exceptions in the rule, it might be best to discuss and perhaps *informally* have a list of specific ones. This will help the IP community feel a bit
This was supposed to say "...specific ones before passing the rule." Oops. -jr ---- Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN] <jrichard@cubicle.net/fix.net/freedom.gen.ca.us/geekresearch.com> Geek Research LLC IP Network Engineering and Consulting
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Kim Hubbard wrote:
We thought it best not to include specific exceptions because although we were aware of several possible exceptions, we didn't want people to feel restricted to just those listed. There could've been some we didn't know about and we wanted to wait until we heard from some of the requesting
OTOH, the new policy could have said something like: Examples of exceptions to this new rule are (but are not limited to): A) websites using SSL (https://) B) virtual host anonymous FTP sites C) ... etc. Instead, we're all left guessing. Nobody has a clue what might constitute a valid exception. We waste lots of time whining and arguing about the new policy and create a huge message thread. The thread begins to wander and spawns sub-threads arguing about the validity of various protocols, file naming conventions, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
jlewis@lewis.org wrote:
So who actually goes to these things, and was the new policy a later result of discussions at the meeting, or was there actually some sort of vote at the meeting?
There was a count-of-hands vote at either the member or public policy meeeting (I don't remember which one offhand, as it was a while ago). The issue had been discussed by the AC extensively, and we generally decided that we needed to bring the issue to the members before we could decide what the issue was. Interestingly enough the membership was more gung-ho on the idea than the AC was.
i.e. was the policy decision made by one of the ARIN boards or by the ARIN members? Since ARIN subscription customers are, by default, ARIN members, will we be given the opportunity to vote or at least express an opinion on such issues via proxy in the future, or do we have to send a representative in order for our voice to be heard?
The board is the only group that can actually enact new policy at ARIN. As I have been on the ARIN AC since it started, I can say from experience that the board has to date only enacted policy that either or both of the AC or the membership has discussed and reached some sort of concensus on. I realize that is a somewhat indirect answer to your question, but based on what I've said I think you can draw your own conclusions.
Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules?
Because ARIN does not presume to know of every single possible legitimate exception to its rules. This was part of what was discussed at the meeting in Calgary. If you think it should be more specific then perhaps you should participate at the meeting in Herndon. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
At 11:44 08/31/2000 -0600, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
jlewis@lewis.org wrote:
So who actually goes to these things, and was the new policy a later result of discussions at the meeting, or was there actually some sort of vote at the meeting?
There was a count-of-hands vote at either the member or public policy meeeting (I don't remember which one offhand, as it was a while ago). The issue had been discussed by the AC extensively, and we generally decided that we needed to bring the issue to the members before we could decide what the issue was. Interestingly enough the membership was more gung-ho on the idea than the AC was...
If memory serves, this show of hands took place in the ARIN Public Policy meeting, *NOT* in the member meeting. ARIN Public Policy meetings are intended to be open to the broader community -- they are not members-only affairs. See the announcement for the forthcoming ARIN VI meeting at http://www.arin.net/announcements/memmeet.html:
Public Policy Meeting The first two days will consist of the PPM, an open forum for discussing issues and addressing the needs of the IP community. All parties are invited to attend this meeting. At last April's event, many policy and related technical issues were endorsed.
Cheers, - Scott (speaking for himself only)
participants (6)
-
Alec H. Peterson -
J. Scott Marcus -
jlewis＠lewis.org -
Josh Richards -
Kim Hubbard -
Richard Jimmerson