[arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

[Steven Ryerse]

I do think the Community needs to set the Minimums in various policies and I'm not trying to take that away.  You are correct that my opinion is that if 2014-13 goes thru and then my proposed policy were to go thru then all that has been achieved is that a /24 could be had by all without needs testing once per year.  Saddling an Organization that needs say a /20 with having to get disparate /24 blocks over times makes the problem worse for the slightly larger Organizations.  We have seen that problem described recently by Larry Ash in his challenge to get a block large enough for his Organization's needs.  

I suppose that if 2014-13 does goes thru as is I will have to modify my proposed policy, but it would be great if the Community would finally come together and rectify these problems for smaller Organizations that have been described here by various Organizations from time to time for many years.  

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠
             
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: John Curran; Kevin Blumberg; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Its more complicated than that.  I’ve submitted the proposed policy change below to the AC.  Obviously at this early stage I don’t know if the Community will accept this or not but 2014-13 complicates this proposal.

I appears to me that your objection to this proposal is essentially IFF your proposed policy change to remove needs testing is accepted by the community, that accepting this proposal as written will mean you could only get a /24 without proving needs, rather than something larger.  Is that the essence of your objection?  If not, please be explicit, since I am not getting it.

I would propose that if your goal is to be able to get a /22 (or whatever it is) every year without needs testing that you make that explicit in your new proposal.  That way, the proposals are not interlinked in either way, and each can stand on their own merits, and the agenda's are (more) clearly marketed.

Thanks.

Gary