[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-6 reworded?

[Alex Kamantauskas]

 I'm not adamant that the timeframe extension language stay in.  If others
 still want it, I think we should place language that describes what is
 needed by the justification.

 Those who require a timeframe extension would have to prove that they
 need the extension. I would not want the language to be used as a
 loophole to buy some time for those who would normally easily be able to
 renumber within the 6 month period.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Taylor, Stacy wrote:

> Excellent point.  The original wording stands, then?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:43 PM
> To: 'Taylor, Stacy '; ''Alex Kamantauskas' '; Bill Darte
> Cc: ''ppml at arin.net' '
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-6 reworded?
>
>
> The ARIN BoT has asked the AC to provide crisp and unambiguous policy
> statements.....
>
> While, as I have said, I have sympathy for those with 'extraordinary'
> circumstances which might cause them to have trouble meeting the
> requirements for renumbering and would thus cause them to petition for more
> time from ARIN.
>
> This places and extraordinary burden on ARIN staff as well....
>
> If we MUST put this extension justification language in then I suggest we
> MUST provide some representative guidance on what would qualify for
> justification.......much as the examples of Internet Infrastructure
> associated with the micro allocations policy.....
>
> I urge that we do not incorporate such language, but leave to the
> organization the understanding that they need to make extraordinary
> preparation for renumbering if they have extraordinary renumbering
> circumstances.... and wish to take advantage of this policy.
>
> billd
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Stacy
> To: 'Alex Kamantauskas'; Bill Darte
> Cc: 'ppml at arin.net'
> Sent: 11/15/02 2:13 PM
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-6 reworded?
>
> I like Alex's sentence, and this wording of the policy.
> Thanks,
> Stacy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Kamantauskas [mailto:alexk at tugger.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:44 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: 'ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-6 reworded?
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Bill Darte wrote:
>
> > Suppose 2002-6 were reworded to reflect the issues raised as such.....
> >
> >
> > Proposed rewording....
> >
> > If any organization relinquishes a group of portable, non-aggregatable
> > address blocks to ARIN, they shall receive a block in exchange.
> Exchange
> > blocks will be of sufficient size to contain the space of all returned
> > blocks without justification up to /17.  Exchange blocks of greater
> than
> /17
> > will require justification of address useage per existing ARIN
> requirements
> > for addtional address allocations.  Exchange blocks larger than /20
> must
> be
> > renumbered within 12 months; all others must be renumbered within 6
> months.
> > If ALL returned blocks were maintained by ARIN without maintenance
> fees,
> the
> > exchange block will also be maintained without fee.
> >
> >
> > Other alternatives?
> >
>
>  I would modify this to read:
>
>  "Exchange blocks larger than /20 must be renumbered within 12 months;
> all
>  others must be renumbered within 6 months unless organization can
> justify
>  a timeframe extension"
>
> --
> /ak
>


-- 
/ak