<div dir="ltr">Niki,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your feedback. But, I am unsure how you are relating the existence of a continuing supply of addresses in ARIN's free pool to the problem statement....which is...."<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19.049999237060547px">Current policy prevents an organization that receives BLOCK A in the previous 12 months from transferring to their own organization in another RIR a different block, BLOCK B, though it may have been issued years ago."</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19.049999237060547px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19.049999237060547px">Perhaps you could clarify your position.....thanks again.</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19.049999237060547px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19.049999237060547px">bd</span></div>
<div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:46 PM, xiaofan yang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nikiyangxf@gmail.com" target="_blank">nikiyangxf@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Bill, <div><br></div><div>Thanks for your update and summary. <br><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">My answer is to tick option 1 with answer of NO. As ARIN still has the free pool, there is no need to further discuss this proposal. I would like to suggest to abandon this draft. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">Regards, </p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
Niki</p>
<p style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:16px"><b></b><br></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Bill Darte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:billdarte@gmail.com" target="_blank">billdarte@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">The Draft Policy ARIN 2014-2 Improving Anti-Flip Language was discussed at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting in Chicago last week and while there was no consensus for the Draft using current language, the community encouraged the AC to continue work on it as there was sympathy for the problem statement. <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_2.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_2.html</a><div>
<br><div>Draft Policy Issue:</div><div>Simply, the author wishes the Anti-Flip language currently used in the NRPM to be relaxed, allowing an Inter-RIR transfer within their own organization of previously existing addresses....though they may have received a new allocation or assignment within the last 12 months.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Current draft language states that the organization may do such a transfer, but may not use the actual addresses which were received from ARIN (or through transfer) in the previous 12 months. But they could therefore transfer other resources holdings.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Request for feedback:</div><div>In order to further this discussion and gain a consensus, I would like to once again ask the community to speak in favor or against this Draft Policy so that it may be presented and discussed at our next Public Policy Consultation at NANOG in June.</div>
<div><br></div><div>1. Yes or No. Should the community relax existing policy which attempts to limit the transfer of ARIN resources out of region, in order to allow an organization flexibility to move address blocks to another portion of their own organization in another region, even though they might have received different addresses within ARIN in the last 12 months? </div>
<div><br></div><div>(Note current policy would still restrict availability of new addresses to the organization for a period of 12 months after the transfer and is not being changed by this draft).</div><div><br></div><div>
2. If YES above, are there any other qualifications or limits that should be imposed on the resources transferred or the organization?</div><div><br></div><div>(Note that a vote of NO to question #1 would essentially ask the Advisory Council to abandon this draft policy leaving existing policy in place.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks to all who continue to work within the community to exercise their right and duty to craft appropriate policy guiding ARIN's important role in Internet number resource management.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div><div>Bill Darte</div><div>Policy Shepherd for 2014-2</div><div>ARIN Advisory Council</div></font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>