[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
jason.brandt at pearlcompanies.com
Tue Aug 18 14:57:26 EDT 2020
I am in support of this proposal.
Senior Systems Engineer
Pearl Companies | 1200 E Glen Ave Peoria Heights, IL 61616
P: 309.679.0184 F: 309.688.5444 E: jason.brandt at pearlcompanies.com
www.pearlcompanies.com | Insurance - Technology - Automotive
PEARL COMPANIES CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication and destroy all copies [v1.0.002].
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of A N
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:31
To: Isaiah Olson <isaiah at olson-network.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
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.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson <isaiah at olson-network.com<mailto:isaiah at olson-network.com>> wrote:
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.
Olson Tech, LLC
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML