[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering ofOrganizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Hayee Bokhari bokhari at cronomagic.com
Tue Aug 18 11:39:25 EDT 2020


Seems like a plan,
Go for it.
Regards
Hayee Bokhari
514-341-1579 Ex 212
800-427-6012 Ex 212
bokhari at cronomagic.com
http://www.cronomagic.com
Hi all, 

Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and 5 against. 


Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on total holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not a restriction when they were originally placed on the list. 


As such, the amended proposal would look like this: 


ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS: if their total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.

Thoughts?


-Anita Nikolich



On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson <isaiah at olson-network.com> wrote:

Hi all,

On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support for this policy. As much as I find some arguments against the policy compelling, namely that nobody is guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of time frame when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the community that an error was made in moving the target out from underneath companies who had already been patiently waiting on the list in accordance with the requirements at the time they were added. 

As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of the most important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction of the /22 limit and the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait list issued space. Although we may have erred in retroactively removing orgs based on the new /20 limit for total space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should be subject to the same treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after 2019-16 was implemented. Otherwise, I believe we would once again be creating a situation of unequal treatment for the orgs who had to reduce their request size to a /22 after the implementation of 2019-16, and were subject to the new 60 month waiting period upon issuance.

With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is little to support this arbitrary boundary when the original waitlist policy specified no such condition. Since we are remedying a one time error, I think that we shouldn’t be too particular about which of the aggrieved parties are allowed to make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most organizations holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to obtain space in other ways, I think the duty of ARIN to be fair and impartial requires us to take a bit broader view. Asking an organization to take a smaller allocation, or wait longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me to be a much less onerous retroactive application of new policy than drawing any boundary which results in complete ineligibility for some.

Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC 
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


Hi all, 

Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and 5 against. 


Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on total holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not a restriction when they were originally placed on the list. 


As such, the amended proposal would look like this: 


ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS: if their total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.

Thoughts?


-Anita Nikolich



On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson <isaiah at olson-network.com> wrote:

Hi all,

On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support for this policy. As much as I find some arguments against the policy compelling, namely that nobody is guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of time frame when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the community that an error was made in moving the target out from underneath companies who had already been patiently waiting on the list in accordance with the requirements at the time they were added. 

As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of the most important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction of the /22 limit and the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait list issued space. Although we may have erred in retroactively removing orgs based on the new /20 limit for total space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should be subject to the same treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after 2019-16 was implemented. Otherwise, I believe we would once again be creating a situation of unequal treatment for the orgs who had to reduce their request size to a /22 after the implementation of 2019-16, and were subject to the new 60 month waiting period upon issuance.

With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is little to support this arbitrary boundary when the original waitlist policy specified no such condition. Since we are remedying a one time error, I think that we shouldn’t be too particular about which of the aggrieved parties are allowed to make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most organizations holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to obtain space in other ways, I think the duty of ARIN to be fair and impartial requires us to take a bit broader view. Asking an organization to take a smaller allocation, or wait longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me to be a much less onerous retroactive application of new policy than drawing any boundary which results in complete ineligibility for some.

Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC 
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


2020-08-1811:39:03
Notice 
This communication is intended to be received only by the individual[s] or
entity[s] to whom or to which it is addressed, and contains information
which is confidential, privileged and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized
use, copying, review or disclosure is prohibited. Please notify the sender
immediately if you have received this communication in error [by calling
collect, if necessary] so that we can arrange for its return at our expense.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated assistance and cooperation.
 
 
Cette communication est destinée uniquement à la personne ou à la personne
morale à qui elle est adressée. Elle contient de l'information
confidentielle, protégée par le secret professionnel et sujette à des droits
d'auteurs. Toute utilisation, reproduction, consultation ou divulgation non
autorisées sont interdites. Nous vous prions d'aviser immédiatement
l'expéditeur si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur (en appelant à
frais virés, si nécessaire), afin que nous puissions prendre des
dispositions pour en assurer le renvoi à nos frais. Nous vous remercions à
l'avance de votre coopération.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200818/f7c6ad21/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list