[arin-ppml] ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying Requirements for IPv4 Transfers - Last Call

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Wed May 9 13:08:24 EDT 2012

William Herrin wrote:
> On 5/8/12, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>> So far there has only been one last call comment on this Draft Policy,
>> and that was from the author of the associated policy proposal.
>> However, I and I'm sure other AC members too, would appreciate any
>> additional last call comments the community may have regarding this
>> Draft Policy.  Even if that is simply to reaffirm your support or lack
>> of support for this Draft Policy.
> Hi David,
> I'm concerned that qualification of another RIR remains described as
> "compatible, needs-based policies" despite ARIN staff's advice that
> such a condition means little: any "needs based policy" with or
> without verifying utilization and with need projections ranging 50
> years or more is deemed compatible because it is needs based.

I supported Policy Proposal 119, believing that compatible meant that a 
recipient would be able to qualify for the receipt of the space under 
both RiR's policies.

As staff has explicitly stated this is not the case, were we to still be 
discussing PP119, which became 2011-1, which was already recommended for 
adoption, and which the Board has merely delayed implementation, I would 
now be opposing it.

For the sake of our PDP, I would like to think that the clarity of this 
interpretation was always present and understood by all those who 
supported 2011-1.

But now we are discussing a draft policy that clarifies requirements for 
these transfers, which are already policy. So unless it somehow makes 
things worse and not better, then I continue to support it.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list