[arin-ppml] Q2: on Address Transfers - Overkill on the freeze period?
steve at ibctech.ca
Fri Jun 20 20:22:56 EDT 2008
Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> That's good, but I am also interested in reducing the "time out" to 2
>> years total. I tend to think you only need one of those clauses, the
>> second one, or if you retain both, make the time period one year.
> I think we need both. Here's why:
> I would, however, be amenable to changing all instances of "24 months"
> in 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 to "12 months" (or something else), if people think
> that'd be better.
> Perhaps we could get some input from other folks on the best duration
> for these "time out" clauses?
Instead of a dedicated time frame, a derivative of some sort based on
their past history, prior to the inclusion of this new portion of the
- received allocation 0403
- received allocation 0610
- received allocation 0702
- received allocation 0806
...a mathematical algorithm based on the size of allocation, and the
time frame between allocations?
Would a well-defined algorithm be non-biased against large and small
orgs in this case, but not hold anyone to a time frame of 'waiting' that
there is no precedence to go by to set?
More information about the ARIN-PPML