[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 124: Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 12/7/10 1:53 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 12/7/10 11:51 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>> 
>> On 12/7/10 12:21 PM, "David Farmer"<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/2/10 13:02 CST, ARIN wrote:
>>> ...
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The ARIN AC should review and determine what action if any should be
>>>> taken at their next available opportunity, or sooner if they deem
>>>> warranted.
>>> 
>>> Was the the third paragraph of the current policy intentionally remove?
>>>    That paragraph was intended to allow transfers via section 8.3 to
>>> continue to receive a 12 month supply and not restricted to 3 month like
>>> allocations from the ARIN pool. I believe it is important to retain this.
>> 
>> 
>> The proposal itself as published by ARIN said:
>> 
>> Proposal type: Modify, complete replacement of 4.2.4.4
>> 
>> 
>> [ clip ]
>> 
>>> I'm not opposed to this policy, but I don't believe it is necessary to
>>> change the policy in order to achieve the desired result, assuming the
>>> only desired result is to grandfather those in queue with the 12 month
>>> supply.  Do others on PPML support this interpretation of section
>>> 4.2.4.4?  Is this a reasonable course of action?
> 
> I did ask "If that is incorrect, would you please explain why you think
> it is a good idea to restrict these transfers to a 3 month supply, and
> that should be more prominent in the rationale."

David,

First, I apologize that I wasn't able to completely answer your email in the
first round. It's an extremely busy time of year and I addressed what I saw
as the most relevant portion of your email.

Restricting transfers is akin to using austerity measures that we are going
to implement post exhaustion except that now it's inverse as applied to the
STLS. It would seem to me that it would discourage some abuses of the
transfer system and discourage abuses related to "address funding" of
transfers. It also gives us some time to come up to speed on the issues. I'd
hate to see someone grab large swaths of legacy space only to find out that
we've created a mess that will deprive others the opportunity to acquire
transition addresses if they have to. Finally, how many transition addresses
does one need? On 11/29, Scott Liebrand suggested that non-profits operating
CI be forced to the STLS. It's important to get it right. Can you think of a
reason not to implement a cap on the STLS, at least to start out?

> Well then, I guess I do oppose the policy as written, at least until I
> receive a better rationale for why to restrict transfers to a 3 month
> supply is a good idea.  This issue was  discussed as part of 2009-8.
> So, I cannot support removing it without a clear and convincing
> rationale for why it should be removed.  Furthermore, I would be very
> skeptical removing it through the use of the emergency PDP, since it was
> relatively recently added through the normal PDP.
> 
> I'm not opposed to grandfathering those in the queue at the time of the

That's good news. In reviewing John Curran's comment, I'm confident that
there is a compatible way to reduce the likelihood of frivolous
applications. We won't totally eliminate them with either interpretation of
this policy and proposal, but should be able to make the issue moot. The
intent is to allow people in the queue that have legitimate need and have
submitted legitimate and complete applications to receive address space and
clean up the queue in a more responsible manner than the original proposal
has allowed for. 

> change, and as I said I believe that can be accomplished without
> changing the policy and without the use of the emergency PDP.
> 


I'm ok with that, but as John noted if we want to be sure that we are having
policy interpreted properly, it should be written as such. I think we need
to pass something to be 100% sure and that includes the STLS cap.


Best,

-M<