[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 5/3/2011 8:03 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 5/3/11 17:49 CDT, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 5/3/2011 3:42 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure... back when there was a free pool, making them jump through the
>>> extra hoops every 3 months to show that they're doing the right thing
>>> makes (some) sense... but once there isn't, every time they get space
>>> might be their last.
>>
>> Oh, and since the "ARIN Community" is mostly made up of the "haves" and
>> has almost no representation (if any) from the "have nots" I have no
>> expectation that there will be widespread support for fixing transfer
>> policies for the "have nots".
>>
>> Not the only organization I'm involved with right now that suffers from
>> this policy-making flaw, I might add.
>
> You can count at least one Internet have as supporting this proposal, 
> I know a few more that probably will to, it is just the kind of people 
> we are and organizations we represent. :)
>
> However, while I support the concept of the proposal, I would like 
> some thought given to how you verify a 12 month, or 24 month if this 
> and 147 go forward, projection for an organization that has no history 
> to back up the projection with.  You probably need to replace the 
> current slow start with some kind of concept, if we are going to call 
> it a needs basis with a straight face.

Here I have been assuming that ARIN staff, who now have several years of 
experience evaluating the space justifications for both existing and new 
entrants, will be able to review these adequately.

>
> How about something like this, currently we are willing to allow a /20 
> on a 3 month basis, what if we allowed a /18 on a 12 month basis.  It 
> relaxes the restrictions on a new entrants, without throwing them 
> completely out.  I suppose you could go to a /16 on a 24 month basis, 
> but I'm not sure I'm willing to go quite that far.
>

I would be ok with some sort of upper bound as long as it is reasonably 
high to accommodate legitimate new entrants, or with some guideline for 
staff to follow.

> I kind of like the idea of changing slow start for new entrants in 
> this proposal to a /18 over 12 months and changing Subscriber Members 
> After One Year to a 24 month supply in PP147.
>
>
>
>

Something like that, sure.

Matthew Kaufman