[arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> 
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> 
>> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> 
>> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
>> with a maximum size of /16.
>> 
>> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> any 6 month period.
> 
> Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
> allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
> 
> Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
> 
> I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
> 
>     — Brett

I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words “or assigned” added
to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this regard, it
is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the upcoming
AC meeting, nothing more.

Owen