[arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

But is not the real unfairness issue being able to receive more space from 
the list than those that apply now?

That is the issue I have a problem with. Along with the fact that without 
free pools, there is little to give out in the first place.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML wrote:

> 
> It's the time spent on the list.  I waited 11 months on the list before getting my allocation.  Most of the organizations affected are likely to have spent
> significant time on the list (unfortunately I do not have the exact data on time spent waiting for affected orgs).  Spending time waiting, then get put to
> the back of the line so to speak and have to do it again, that's the issue.  That was time wasted that could've been spent making other arrangements, hence
> they were penalized.
> 
>  
> 
> Jason​
>  
> Brandt
>  
> 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: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 07:50
> To: Brandt, Jason <jason.brandt at pearlcompanies.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>
>       I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this is "special benefits".
> 
>  
> 
> Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities changes create. Governments do it and business does it. To some extent, the could be called
> "special benefits". However, the context of that is different, some feel the benefits create an inequity rather than resolve one. 
> 
>  
>
>       Organizations went through the approved process to get on the wait list to *possibly* be assigned an address block. The policy on allocations
>       was changed, however the organizations did everything by the book per previous policy. The organization is now told that they have to go through
>       the process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do with potential space allocation. I am all for limiting the allocation amount in the
>       future. However, to penalize an organization that has followed the process to this point is unfair. This also is no guarantee that these
>       organizations will receive an allocation. More likely, they'll continue to wait.
>
>       This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations that went through the proper process of what was approved policy at the time. A
>       similar scenario would be arresting someone who has broken a law, prior to the offense becoming law.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that grandfathering addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting nothing?
> There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself requires any
> special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with much at all.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>
>       I continue to support this policy, not because I agree that larger requests should be granted, but because the organizations had followed the
>       approved process and policies.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't seen strong arguments one way or the other.
> 
>  
> 
> Fair enough. Thank you.
> 
>  
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
>  
> 
> -M<
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>