[arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers proposed updates

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Tue May 9 10:11:25 EDT 2017


John,

Having personally stood up at many members meetings, and requested
my fees be increased or even doubled if that is what it take to continue
on-going IT development and enhancements...

I do NOT think it is a worthwhile investment to add IT support to
catalog the type of transfer request justification.

It is even less important going forward with the new policy changes which
eliminates the need for smaller than /15 per year requests to use this
justification.

I will not be submitting a ACSP.

I was hoping there was a general sense from processing requests that might
help us to understand if certain request pathways seem like that are never
used,
inconsequentially used, used a bit, used more than one would think,
used quite a bit, used more than half the time, used most frequently, etc.

I don't think it is worthwhile to labor this point.

___Jason

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:39 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On 8 May 2017, at 1:12 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>
> ..
> Can staff sort transfer authorization requests into the following
> categorized?
>
> A. Current Consumption Rate
>     Request considers only current rate, projected out over a time window.
>      - e.g. we used a /15 over the last 12 months.  at this rate a /14 is
> a two year supply.
>
> B. Growth rate
>     Request considers current growth rate, projected over a time window.
>      - e.g. we used a /16 between 01/15 - 12/2015
>               we used a /15 over the last 12 months.
>               at this rate we double every year.
>              if we keep yearly doubling, then a /14 and a /13 is a two
> year supply.
>
> C. Hi bread
>      Request considers current growth rate, but requests more than the
>      current rate over some time horizon due to other reasons for
> acceleration,
>      such as entry into new markets, increase in manufacturing of hand
> sets, etc.
>
>
> D. Future looking
>     Request is purely future looking.
>     - e.g. We anticipate the sale of 1 Million handsets over the next year.
>              50-80% of those handsets will use our application and require
> an IP.
>
> Do you see all of these types?
> Is one type more dominate then the others?
> Is one type more successful than others?
> Does one type require more transaction time? more back and forth?
>
>
> Jason -
>
>    We have not been cataloging transfer requests via such criteria, and
>    hence cannot provide these statistics for transfer requests that have
>    been made to date.   We can begin categorizing them and recording
>    them for future transfers, but would need to specifically augment the
>    processes and systems accordingly.   Such work would need to be
>    prioritized against other existing enhancement requests, so submit
>    a suggestion via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process
>    <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html> if you consider
>    this functionality a priority.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170509/e11c3956/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list