[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Wed Jun 4 21:01:33 EDT 2014
No offense, but there should not be a need for any organization to have to hire a consult to try and get the Minimum size allocation. If you need a consultant for that then something is very wrong with the policies!
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Matthew Kaufman; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
On Jun 4, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> There are several folks (like me) who want to ditch the needs test and there are several folks who don't want to ditch them. I take it your position is that the folks who want to keep needs tests should somehow prevail in this argument without much or any change, and those of us who wish to ditch them should just accept the status quo with needs tests. In other words you win and we lose!
Not necessarily. I’m open for a good debate of the issue on the merits of the proposal. I’ve attempted to stick to that.
> I saw a lot of folks comment here recently who want to at least loosen needs tests on the smaller block sizes, many many more than I've ever seen before. Since it is obvious a sizable portion of this community desires a change toward loosening policies, why is it that you persist in standing in the way of compromise?
I have not stood in the way of compromise and could not do so even if I wanted to. I am only one of 15 votes on the AC. You only need ten of them to get a policy proposal sent to the board. It is, however, equally obvious that a sizable portion of the community, not merely myself, does not want to eliminate the needs test. Currently, there is no actual proposal on the table for loosening them or compromising. If there were one, I would address the merits of it as I saw them.
> There comes a time when fair is fair - and small organizations are routinely discriminated against because of our small size and not so deep pockets. There is a lot of anger out there over the unfairness of these existing policies. It should be just as easy for us to get resources as it was for T-Mobile and others. I call on all members of this community to at least come to a compromise. After all the world hasn't ended for RIPE with their changes - and it won't end here either if fairness is put back into the policies so that small organizations can get the resources they need too!
Given the number of sole-proprietors with very small budgets that I have obtained IP allocations for over the past several years, I think this is an inaccurate characterization of the facts at hand. Indeed, if you look at my posting history and my voting history throughout my tenure on the AC, you will find that I am one of the biggest advocates that the small organization could find.
It is just as easy (if not easier) for small organizations to get resources as large ones. (I know this full well because I have applied for resources for virtually every size category in the ARIN fee table).
If you are having trouble with a particular application, feel free to contact me off-line with the details. I may be able to help you navigate the ARIN process more effectively. We have, by the way, been making steady progress on loosening the restrictions on needs basis. There used to be no ability to get anything smaller than a /20 from ARIN for conventional uses at one time. Today, that’s down to a /24 and there is progress being made on making that possible without multihoming.
More information about the ARIN-PPML