[arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Jul 19 18:42:05 EDT 2014

On Jul 19, 2014, at 11:04 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> I've said this before, but this proposal might help an Org that only needs a /24 but I think it will hurt an Org that needs a /20 or a /22 as the needs test that are applied will force them into qualifying for the /24 but not the /20 or /22 they legitimately need.  Orgs that legitimately need a slightly larger allocation because of the gyrations they must go thru to try and justify a larger allocation, will end up not qualifying even though they have a legitimate need.  The solution here is to completely remove the needs tests at the low end and not just on a /24.   Proposal like 2014-13 are just dancing around the problem instead of trying to legitimately fix it.  

How do you expect this to happen?

If they don't pass the needs test for a /20 under this policy, then they wouldn't pass the needs test for a /20 today.
The only difference would be:

	Under this policy, they might get something smaller that they do pass the test for.
	Today, they get nothing.

This policy does not change the needs test. So how do you come to the conclusion that it will somehow do so?

Do you have any factual basis to believe otherwise? If so, can you please enumerate what that is?

> Small Organizations are very much under-represented in this Community and therefore their reasonable interests go under-represented.  I do appreciate you asking Gary but I don't see the needs of small Organizations truly represented in this Community.  

I have to disagree with you here. While larger organizations are over-represented as a percentage of organizations served by ARIN, they still are not the majority of those participating in the policy process. They are still pretty well outnumbered by smaller organizations.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list