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

[Mike Burns]

Hello,

I support the policy. These people got on the list and behaved. A third
party defrauded the list and these people are punished as a result.
I feel their good behavior should not be punished, and the simple expedient
of grandfathering this limited population seems fair to me.
Discussions about the size of the pool and prior policy change
implementations miss the mark. This is a simple question of fairness.
Nobody's ox is being gored here. Nobody has more claim to these addresses
than these companies in my opinion.

I agree with the poster who noted those members excluded due to the
implementation of a policy change which was explicitly designed to favor
small holders over large holders. This restricting access to the waiting
list to small holders only was a mistake in my opinion, but at least this
policy restores fair treatment to some.

The unusual cause of the Waiting list termination and the policy change
should be considered in the context of this policy, IMO. These members have
been punished already for somebody else's fraud in the long period of
waiting time they have endured.

I don't find any issue with the dissemination of this information and the
request for support from others, either. This isn't some closed club, and
the motivations of the posters shouldn't be subject to the implications
present on the list, like the accusation of incentives for posts. Bad form.

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of John Santos
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 12:38 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2

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
_______________________________________________
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.