[arin-ppml] In support of ARIN-2020-2

[Isaiah Olson]

Hi all,

I just want to restate my support for the implementation of ARIN-2020-2. 
Having read all the opinions, I still think the implementation of this 
policy is appropriate. It's been pointed out by several people that this 
whole situation was an impetus for many ARIN community members to learn 
more about, and take a more active role in, the policy process. I think 
it's also worth pointing out that ARIN-2019-16 made its way through the 
policy process fairly quickly compared to many other policies I am 
seeing today. It was only formally put to the PPML list in April of 2019 
and implemented by July 2019. I don't think it's entirely clear that all 
relevant stakeholders had the opportunity to provide input on this 
policy, given the time frame.

Overall, I agree with the policy goals of ARIN-2019-16. I simply believe 
that some of the changes should not have been retroactive. If an 
organization was willing to accept a /22 to meet some of their needs, I 
think they should have been given the opportunity to receive that 
address space regardless of their current holdings. In my view, this 
would have been the most equitable and fair way to implement the policy 
change. This allows the policy to address the reality that there isn't 
sufficient returned space to offer larger blocks than a /22 anymore, and 
allows the 60 month waiting period to take effect and deter any possibly 
fraudulent requests from remaining on the list, without punishing 
organizations for someone else's fraud. Going forward, these 
organizations have not been led along by waiting for months on a list, 
and are fully aware that the size of their organization's current 
holdings restrict them to the transfer market for additional IPv4 space.

Thanks,
Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC