[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe
marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com
Fri Jun 20 11:18:56 EDT 2008
Randy's answer should suffice.
But since its asked despite it being in the rational of the proposal I will re-word it.
If a more point blank explanation is needed maybe this one will work:
Its a waste of time and money for both parties (ARIN Staff and Experimenter). One year is a short timeframe for any experiment to have to take time out for administrivia. And while 1 year is a waste of time for both parties it wont do any harm to push it out to 2 years which is a more realistic time frame for an experimenter to really figure out if they have something worth pursuing or not. And it does NO harm to change it.
And yes there is an experiment with this space in progress which is why this bit of ridiculous adminsitrivia with a short time frame came up.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:16 PM
To: heather skanks
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe
heather skanks wrote:
> Is the argument that renewing an experimental allocation every year is a
> hardship? Would anyone care to post about their experiences with an
> experimental allocation and the renewal process?
it's fairly easy, just administrivia and money
> Can the authors or someone on list, give a current example of a "true
> experiment in technical nature that addresses the internet
> architecture and routing" that is adversely affected by the 1 year renewal requirement?
it's just administrivia and money
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML