[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 124: Clarification of Section 220.127.116.11
jcurran at arin.net
Thu Dec 9 14:19:32 EST 2010
On Dec 9, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> 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?
Its likely that everyone understood what you meant, but just for clarity...
I believe that most your references in the above should be to NRPM 8.3,
the Specified Transfer policy. The STLS (Specified Transfer Listing Service)
is completely separate, and is simply one way parties might find each other.
For more details on STLS, see <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/>
Regardless of how parties find one another, they may transfer space via ARIN
if they qualify under NRPM 8.3.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML