[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sun Feb 23 16:56:44 EST 2014

On Feb 23, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

This is an example of how policies penalize legitimate organizations needing to do legitimate transfers.  In my opinion the Polices have swung so far towards preventing abuse they impact legitimate transfers.  In the publicly traded company world, each quarter is like a year and a year is like 4 years to them since they have to publish their quarterly results 4 times a year.  For them a year is an eternity.  Also, the Internet itself has allowed business functions that once took months or years to take days or weeks which is todays reality.  Some of y’all think 12 months or even 18 months is a short time but that doesn’t align with the reality of today’s business world that the Internet has helped foster.

Although I don’t like abuse either, I am definitely AGAINST raising the hold period to be longer than a year.  If it has to be a year then at minimum, there should be a procedure defined in the policy that an organization can appeal to the ARIN CFO (or whoever) to get an exception for a shorter timeframe – even as short as 30 days.  If what the organization is doing is legitimate and the ARIN CFO will approve it, then the 12 month hold rule should be waived.  My 2 cents.

Steve -

   Just to ask a question - if the hold time was fairly short (e.g. 1 year), would it really be necessary
   to have an exception process?   To the extent possible, it would be nice to keep processes (ergo,
   policy that drives processes) as simple as possible, as this both helps with automation as well as
   predicability for registry users.

   While there is already an ARIN appeals process, it is for the situation when it appears that ARIN did
   not follow adopted policy in handling a resource request,  as opposed to an appeal for a particular
   ARIN officer to reexamine and exercise their own judgement (which is what I understand from your
   proposal above.)   There are some implications to your proposed appeal option (potential for variation,
   fraud) which would need to be carefully considered carefully before implementation.


John Curran
President and CEO

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140223/30d1739a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list