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

Tom Pruitt tpruitt at stratusnet.com
Wed Aug 19 08:46:20 EDT 2020


I support this proposal.

Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
(309)408-8704
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of A N
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:31 AM
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


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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200819/2065ae84/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15673 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200819/2065ae84/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list