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

[John Curran]

Adair -

The Policy Development Process (PDP) is open to any/all who have views on proposed policy, but it is definitely driven by the active participation of interested parties.

Those who support (or oppose) particular policy changes are welcome to participate, but ARIN staff does not solicit those requesting number resources on their views about various proposals – nor do we engage in outreach about policy proposals under consideration – as the potential to “skew” community participation through such actions is relatively high and thus not an appropriate activity for ARIN staff.

So, with respect to "Have the organizations on the waiting list been specifically asked for their response to this proposal?” - No, that has not occurred.  Those on the waiting list who also participate in the arin-ppml mailing list are, of course, quite welcome to provide their views here in the discussion.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


On Oct 2, 2024, at 11:20 AM, Adair Thaxton <sthaxton at internet2.edu> wrote:

Noting this:

"The author also noted a serendipity in the number of waiting list entries (703) and the amount of entries that could have been met with a /24 cap (703) in John Sweeting’s ARIN 52 presentation.  Current waitlist entrants should be given retroactive consideration, but their maximum allocation reduced to /24"

Have the organizations on the waiting list been specifically asked for their response to this proposal?

Adair



On 10/2/24 11:10, Fernando Frediani wrote:
I remain opposed to this proposal for different reasons. Reducing the allocation from /22 to /24 will not solve any tangible problem. Instead will create a new one as /24 is so small even for the smaller organizations that are waiting in order to use it properly to connect people and businesses. It is necessary to guarantee that whoever receives in such scenario has a bare minimal to do things and /22 is already something very small.
This allows organizations to exist, innovate and then at some point in time be able to transfer further blocks in order to keep doing business.
It may sound the proposal be aiming to reduce anxiety from having to wait too long in the waiting list, but the reality is that there aren't IP addresses left to to replenish the pool and there is no much that can be done about that. That is a fact for quiet a while.
What I would support in another proposal is to reduce the eligibility criteria to stand in the waiting list to simply have already any IPv4 allocation regardless the size. There is a big significant difference between one who has addresses already and newer one who have nothing. Whatever left can go to them and will benefit the Internet in the region by having more and different actors and business happening. Those who have something have options to continue and grow their existing business.
Fernando
On 01/10/2024 02:41, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:29 AM ARIN<info at arin.net>  wrote:
Policy Statement:

4.1.8. ARIN Waitlist

ARIN will only issue future IPv4 assignments/allocations (excluding 4.4 and 4.10 space) from the ARIN Waitlist.
Strange formulation since ARIN issues transferred IP addresses to the recipient.


Organizations which ever held any IPv4 space other than special use space received under section 4.4 or 4.10 are not eligible to apply.
Bad grammar. Which ever held? Even if you fix it to "which have ever
held," it's still a clumsy sentence.

And why exclude 4.4 and 4.10? Are there an abundance of critical
infrastructure providers who don't have other IPv4 space, can't afford
to get it on the market, yet have the time to dilly dally on the
waitlist? Doesn't seem like such infrastructure is particularly
critical.


Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be eligible for transfer, with the exception of Section 8.2 transfers, for a period of 60 months.
So if I create an LLC to hold the addresses I can sell the LLC to get
around the transfer restriction? I mean, I could do that anyway but
with this exception the recipient wouldn't even have to maintain the
LLC.


This policy will be applied to all future distributions from the waitlist to include those currently listed.
Bad grammar. What does "to include" mean here?


This policy will apply to waitlist requests received following the
implementation of this policy. Waitlist requests received prior to
the implementation of this policy will not be affected.
This seems to conflict with the preceding text about it being applied
to all future distributions?


Regards,
Bill Herrin


_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20241002/26028249/attachment-0001.htm>