[arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2014-2 Improved 8.4 Anti-Flip Language

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Mar 10 04:31:10 EDT 2014

On Mar 9, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com<mailto:mpetach at netflight.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com<mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>> wrote:
3. Take an alternative tack and simply restrict transfers on a per-block rather than a per-organization basis. e.g. 'No block acquired within the past 24 months would be eligible for transfer.' (The time frame is of course an arbitrary number at this point.)

I support option #3.

I'm curious if it would be better to reference time
periods from other sections of the NRPM, rather
than hard-coding a specific term here?  IE, if we
limit transfer requests to a 24-month supply, then
tie the anti-transfer period to be the same duration
as the supply length, so that if we extend or contract
the supply length for transfers, this anti-flip language
inherits the same change.   This doesn't affect my
support for option #3, I'm just looking to see if there's
ways we can limit the potential for the NRPM getting
'out of sync' with itself in the future, if we change one
section but don't catch all the related sections like this.

Matt -

   It is possible to reference time periods from other policy sections of the NRPM,
   or define such periods upfront in the definitions section and reference them later,
   as the community prefers.  Either approach should reduce possibility of mismatch
   occurring as the result of future changes.


John Curran
President and CEO

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140310/46e37bc5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list