[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

Brett Frankenberger rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
Sun Aug 23 18:52:35 EDT 2015

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 06:14:59PM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
> >
> >​I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to
> >accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two years
> >is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being used. IMHO​
> I do not understand this reasoning. There is no more free pool. If Org A is
> not using "valuable resources" and they are transferred to Org B who was
> mistaken about how fast they will use them, then Org B is also not using
> "valuable resources". But if instead Org A can't transfer them, then Org B
> doesn't get them and Org A still has "valuable resources" which are "tied
> up". They're "tied up" not being used either way... and ARIN can't do
> anything about it.

This analysis ignores the existance of Org C that had a need that can
be justified under ARIN policies as they exist today.

If Org A wants to transfer and can't transfer to Org B, Org A probably
won't keep them sitting on the shelf; chances are they'll find Org C or
D or E or ...

     -- Brett

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list