[arin-ppml] Q2: on Address Transfers - Overkill on the freeze period?

Steve Bertrand 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 mailing list