[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[John Curran]

On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> The word "need"  gets mixed up with these other things, that are
> artificial constructions and don't have to do with need  --   as I
> understand,  the transfer policies are interpreted in a capricious and
> biased way --  in other words,  ARIN staff imagine  that there are
> extra restrictions or constraints that are allowed to be imposed,
> besides demonstration of need.
> 
> For example:  that a transfer recipient requesting a /24    has had to
> have justified a /20 first.

Jimmy - 

I'll have to disagree with your characterization "capricious and
bias" interpretation of policy, but will concur that the NRPM 8.3
transfer policy, by its nature of requiring qualification under 
"under current ARIN policies" (only with a longer time window),
can be difficult to administer under some circumstances.  

The example you cite (having to meet the ISP minimum allocation
size) is indeed one such result, and there are others.  ARIN staff
work to bring issues such as these to the community through the 
Policy Experience report given at each Public Policy Meeting,
as well as on this mailing list, so that the community can 
consider whether a change to policy is warranted as a result.
(e.g. the implications of the current policy language and 
resulting minimum was discussed on this list on 16 April 2013,
and it is possible for anyone in the community to submit a 
policy proposal to change it if they feel it is an issue.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN