[arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Fri Dec 26 20:03:39 EST 2014


On 12/26/2014 4:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com
> <mailto:springer at inlandnet.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi John,
>
>     Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me
>     to address the points you offer inline.
>
>     On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote:
>
>
>         Oppose 2014-14
>
>         1) /16 is not "small"
>
>
>     This has actually been mentioned before, by several commentators.
>     The problem with "big" and "not "small"" is that they require
>     reference to a datum, which WRT to 2014-14 has not been provided.
>     Owen Delong provided a fair attempt to come to grips with what big
>     or small actually mean as percentages of the number and size of
>     transfers that have occured since the STLS policy was adopted in
>     2009, here:
>
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> I think it might help if we use the terms
> XX-Small, X-Small, Small, etc. as defined
> by ARIN themselves at
>  https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html
>
> This might help eliminate confusion, and allow
> for some flexibility going forward; if we instead
> of hard-coding a specific size, instead tie it to
> the fee schedule, and say "only entities that
> currently fall into the "Small" and below category
> of the ARIN fee schedule (ie cumulative /18 or
> less of total IPv4 holdings as of the 2013 fee
> schedule) may obtain a single transfer allocation
> of size not to exceed the largest allowed for an
> XX-Small organization (which, as of the 2013
> fee schedule would mean a /22 or smaller)."
>
> Or perhaps keep it supremely simple:
> "Any org-ID may obtain one transfer allocation
> of size not to exceed the largest allocation
> within the XX-Small category (currently a /22,
> as of the 2013 fee schedule) per year without
> requiring needs justification."
>
> That way, as our concept of ISP size shifts
> and changes over time, so too does the
> maximum needs-free allocation size.

I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  The
fees and its categories are under the control of the board; number
policy is under control of the Internet community via the PDP.  I
believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes
with number policy.

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/cf7d8e50/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list