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

[John Santos]

I thought we went through all this when the policy change was adopted.  The 
issues at the time, as best I understood them, were requests that exceeded the 
new limit and requests from organizations that already have large allocations or 
assignments.  The options discussed, for both issues, was whether to retain the 
existing requests, to allow the organizations to reduce their request to the new 
maximum (or lower) while retaining their place in line, or to drop requesters 
who exceeded the maximum current holdings or who were making a large request 
completely.  (If they met the new policy, they could file a new request and go 
to the end of the line.)

I didn't pay much attention because my company's current size (a legacy class C) 
is sufficient, and some day, hopefully in this millennium, one or both of our 
ISPs will offer IPv6.  (They both have been claiming to have it in testing for 
years, but no announced availability dates, last time I checked.)

And mostly, the whole thing was academic because the free pool was essentially 
empty and there seemed to be little prospect of any returns that would refill 
it, so no one on the wait list, unless they were seeking an initial /24, had any 
real chance of getting anything, and even they would probably have to wait a while.

IIRC, the adopted policy was to offer orgs on the wait list who's request was 
too large the chance to drop their request size, and remove anyone whose current 
holdings were too large, sort of a middle course.

The kid in front of Oliver wants an entire pot of porridge, but there's barely 
enough to give Oliver a second scoop, let alone another bowl.  I think this 
discussion and proposal are a major waste of time and effort and I oppose.


On 11/2/2020 8:50 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net 
> <mailto: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<
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539