[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks - Revised

[CJ Aronson]

Martin..

My fellow AC members who were at the meeting handled the discussion well
and I didn't feel the need to speak on the subject.  Mostly I listen to the
community and that is what I did during the PPC. That is not shocking  :-)

Further.. this does change nothing but it also documents current practice
and the ARIN staff requested in a policy experience report that this be
documented so that it is clear what the current practice is.

----Cathy


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
> >> You must not have been at the aforementioned consultation.
> >>
> > First of all I was online listening to the PPC.  Second I didn't write
> the
>
> You were registered:
>
> http://bit.ly/1dqQhdF
>
> But you didn't say a word during the entire discussion and you are the
> shepherd. And considering that I spoke specifically on this topic at
> the PPC, that is outright shocking! :-)
>
> > changes but I do agree with them and belleve they reflect the concerns
> that
> > came up at that meeting.
>
> Once you scrub the AC cheer leading, there was no support for these
> changes. No change would support that context.
>
> You can see for yourself here:
>
> http://bit.ly/1g9Wg3T
>
>
> >>
> >> > Add the following statement to section 4.5.4.
> >> >
> >> > Upon verification that the organization has demonstrated need at its
> new
> >> > discrete network site, the new networks shall be allocated the minimum
> >> > allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the organization can
> >> > demonstrate additional need using the immediate need criteria
> (4.2.1.6).
> >>
> >> Talk about locking someone out of a policy lock, stock and barrel and
> >> flushing "stewardship" down the drain completely. Most MDN users are
> >> going to go straight to 4.2.1.6 only to find that they are locked out
> >> because they aren't contracted as an ISP. They could buy another
> >> OrgID... and pay another exorbitant fee if qualified I guess. If we
> >> really want to limit users to a /22 why not do it across the board?
> >
> >
> > There is nothing in this policy that isn't currently happening in
> practice
> > with MDN allocations.  I am not sure what "contracted as an ISP" means.
> >
>
> If an end-user attempts to use 4.2.1.6 they won't be turned away?
>
> 4.2.1.6 --- "If an ISP has an immediate need for address space, "
>
> Force feeding accomplishes at least one parties objectives, but always
> result in an unhappy patient. The AC needs to leave this alone
> considering that, according to multiple AC members now, it changes
> nothing.
>
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140305/ae5022e9/attachment.htm>