[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-147 Set Transfer Need to 24 months and Clarify Exception

[Martin Hannigan]

I think that 36 months is probably a realistic target. A three year
planning horizon with respect to such an important issue is probably
not unreasonable.

Best,

-M<



On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:49 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:00 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-147 Set Transfer Need to 24 months and Clarify Exception
>>> Proposal Originator: Matthew Kaufman
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Change section 4.2.4.4 content as follows:
>>>
>>> Replace:
>>> "This reduction does not apply to resources received via section 8.3. An
>>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to
>>> request up to a 12-month supply of IP addresses."
>>>
>>> With:
>>> "This reduction does not apply to resources received via transfer. An
>>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8 may request up to a
>>> 24-month supply of IP addresses."
>>>
>>> Timetable for implementation: immediate
>>
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> In principle, I support allowing recipients of addresses under section
>> 8.3 to justify their use on a 24-month horizon. The shorter horizons
>> were intended to dissuade folks from asking for more than they really
>> need of a dwindling free resource. Under 8.3, that resource is no
>> longer free. The cost will be sufficient to provide the backpressure
>> that the short estimating horizons provide now.
>>
>> I don't like this wording. For one thing, 4.2.4.4 is the wrong place
>> for this -- it should apply evenly to ISPs and end-users and should
>> apply regardless of the length of time the registrant has been a
>> "subscriber member." And by the way, how the heck did when end up with
>> such an odd term, "subscriber member," which is not defined anywhere
>> and used nowhere else in the document. How is it intended to be
>> different than the term "LIR?"
>>
>> Also, I'm not convinced that such a policy should be implemented prior
>> to the exhaustion of ARIN's normal allocation pool.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>> --
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
> I would support this. I would support it even more if it were 36 months.
>
> --
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>