[arin-ppml] Team Review - policy matter? (was: Re: reverse COE statement)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Sep 24 18:26:15 EDT 2014

On Sep 24, 2014, at 2:03 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2014, at 4:33 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Owen,
>> I understand what you're saying, and I think I agree.  I don't understand why John is saying 'submit a template? because I agree with you that it isn't at all a policy matter.
> David - 
> I do not believe that it is a policy matter - Owen suggested that 
> it was implied by NRPM 8.3 policy language (which provides that 
> the recipient and resources must meet ARIN's current policies.).  
> I pointed out that the policy would have to be must clearer to hold 
> the meaning he intends and note the option of a policy proposal.
> ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan is quite similar to the serialization 
> and review of requests that APNIC and RIPE performed as part of
> their IPv4 pool runout plans, and originated in order to provide
> for fair treatment of requests from the free pool as we approach
> runout.  Team review of requests (where the entire analyst staff
> gathers to process the request queue) is not efficient, but does
> provide benefits for serialization in processing of requests. It
> is unclear how that would be at all beneficial for IPv4 transfers
> and it definitely would impact IPv4 transfer processing times.

I doubt it would be beneficial to transfers. However, I don’t think it is fair for transfers to be expedited and handled faster than free pool requests.

I believe it is a fairness issue, not an efficiency issue.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list