[arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

[Mike Burns]

Hello,

 

The wait list is three years long and the justifications are two year projections. 

The waitlist is not functioning adequately unless we consider a current needs-test to be worthless.

There is a fundamental issue with needs-testing here.  

Does it matter if the needs-tests are accurate at the time of allocation?

 

I believe need-testing (expensive) transfers are unnecessary and RIPE’s lengthy, broad and deep transfer experiences demonstrates this.

We’ve witnessed 10 years without a needs test at the RIR that does the most transfers, and where is the problem?

 

Leaving that aside, I think our current predicament needs to change. 

It is unseemly that we are applying out-of-date needs tests while maintaining the requirement for them.

That’s the very picture of brainless bureaucracy.

 

I support eliminating access to the waitlist, parceling out any incoming addresses to those on the waitlist, and redirecting any subsequent incoming address space to the 4.10 pool, so number 2 below.

 

I support continuing to work on this proposal and adding a clause dealing with existing waitlist occupants. We got into trouble changing the waitlist rules last time we did to patient waitlist occupants. So also 4 and 5 below.

 

In general, I don’t support any market-distorting elements like “free addresses” impacting the maturing transfer market. 

I will be relieved when all the free address pools are completely drained everywhere.

There will always be dribbles of returned or revoked addresses. They don’t have to go into a free pool.

 

Regards,
Mike Burns

 

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Denis Motova
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 10:28 PM
To: Gerry E.. George <ggeorge at digisolv.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

 

Hello everyone,

 

I hope you're all well here in the PPML.

 

I'd like to express my gratitude to Gerry George for effectively communicating these policy questions with the community. Thank you for that.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

1. There is no necessity to revise the policy. I believe this policy should be abandoned.

2. I abstain from commenting on this point as the previous point presents my stance clearly on this matter.

3. If somehow, this policy was to be implemented (it shouldn’t be), it should NOT apply retroactively.

 

Similar to Owen's earlier message, I oppose treating current pending users on the waiting list differently from those who completed the grandfathering process under the existing terms. This policy attempts to rectify something that doesn't require correction and is currently functioning adequately.

 

Thanks again!

Denis

 





On 20 Jun 2024, at 5:00 AM, Gerry E.. George <ggeorge at digisolv.com <mailto:ggeorge at digisolv.com> > wrote:

 

ARIN Community –

 

As a co-shepherd on policy 2023-8 (Gerry George & Brian Jones), we are soliciting the community for feedback on this policy proposal following the discussions and opinions expressed at and since ARIN53.

 

They have been distilled into a few main opinions (in no particular order):

1. Policy not needed (no change).

2. Do away with the Waitlist completely.

3.Leave the /22 Maximum Allocation unchanged, but introduce a different method or formula of weighting the Waitlist requests to incorporate wait times and allocation size.

4. Continue to work on it, and clarify wording.

5. If to move forward, MUST address those currently on the Wait List and will they be Grandfathered in? (Fairness)

 

 

Questions for the Community:

a. Do we keep working on this policy? (Y/N - #1, #2)

b. If yes, should consideration be given for some formula or weighted method towards allocations to queue occupants? (#3, #4)

c. If yes, is there a need to add a clause for dealing with existing waitlist occupants? (#4, #5)

And if so, how should they be handled? 

 

Note that if such a clause is determined for inclusion (#5), it will likely apply to ALL currently on the waitlist as at a specific point in time and they ALL would thus be subject to any such clause in the policy, once adopted.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Gerry E. George
ICT Consultant and Business Solutions Architect;

DigiSolv, Inc. [P.O. Box 1677, Castries, Saint Lucia] 


  _____  


Mobile: (758) 728-4858 / Int'l Office: (347) 450-3444 / Skype: DigiSolv
Email: ggeorge at digisolv.com <mailto:ggeorge at digisolv.com>     /    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrygeorge/


Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

 

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net>  if you experience any issues.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240621/55f3bee4/attachment-0001.htm>