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

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Fri Jul 17 10:59:00 EDT 2020


I support the policy as written and I do not believe we should prioritize
small holders over large holders.
Large holders pay higher fees but I don't see the rationale behind favoring
small  holders on the wait list.
All holders should be on equal footing, we never had a new-entrant reserve
at ARIN and I think if that is something we want to do, it should be
discussed openly and not inserted through the back door of waitlist policy.

Regards,
Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:59 AM
To: 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

I am also against this proposal.

If we allow holders of larger blocks back onto the list, we take away blocks
that should go to smaller holders.

The waiting list is NOT a lottery to be "won", and I think the policy should
not change.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:

> 
> I do not support the reintroduction of organizations onto the 
> wait-list who were removed due to having existing address holdings 
> larger than a /20.  Being on the wait-list was never a guarantee that 
> you would receive space.  The AC had to balance the various elements of
block size and organizations who would be eligible to receive space under
the updated policy and we were aware that the rules as implemented would
prevent some organizations on the wait-list from receiving blocks going
forward.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, not the AC
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 6/19/2020 11:25 AM, Alyssa Moore wrote:
>       Hi folks,
>
>       There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45.
We hear a wide range of views including:
>        1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is
sound. 
>        2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>           of a /22). 
>        3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should
remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>           under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for
grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a
/20.
>        4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>           restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified
for the waitlist. 
>        There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you
have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
> 
> For reference:
> 
> Old waitlist policy
>  1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal
to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN
>     policy.
>  2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a
party eligible for the waitlist.
>  3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
> until after a period of 12 months. New Waitlist Policy  1. Limits the 
> size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
>  2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
>  3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
> until after a period of 60 months.
> 
> Best,
> Alyssa
> 
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>       I support this policy and believe the policy development process is
the proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to
>       be implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
>       list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it
would immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to
>       future readers of the NRPM.
> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added 
> to the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with
the intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice
on how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
>       Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed
from
>       Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
>       Problem Statement:
>
>       The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council
Recommendation
>       Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
>       removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old
policy?s
>       eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been
grandfathered
>       when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an
allocation of
>       IPv4 up to the new policy?s maximum size constraint of a /22.
>
>       Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:
>
>       Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until
the
>       policy objective is achieved)
>
>       Restoring organizations to the waitlist
>
>       ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist
at
>       the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position 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.
>
>       Comments:
>
>       Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>       Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with
other
>       community members the vast majority indicated that they agreed that
some
>       organizations were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
>       _______________________________________________
>       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.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & 
> Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University 
> of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 
> 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
>



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list