<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><br><br></div>Abandon. As David Huberman pointed out, easy to game and doesn't solve the real problem with efficient use of resources where we need them, whether its complying with policies like the German privacy laws or embarking upon legal and efficient financial strategies that are in compliance with the intended and legitimate in policy uses of resources.<br>
<br><br></div>I will also add, however, that completely discounting the voices of folks that did comment in support because we don't appear to like their comments or we decided to discount the venue is extremely negative. I consider my opinion here to be in the minority - hopefully influential to those who disagreed previously. My suggestion to them is to instead support Mr. Hubermans comments and to insist that they try again -- differently.<br>
<br></div><div>I still believe the geo location argument is weak, but I plan to research that additionally and provide more feedback on that later.<br></div><div><br></div>Best,<br><br></div>-M<<br><br><br><div><div><div>
<br><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:14 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Should we abandon this Draft?</div><div><br></div>After the Chicago Public Policy Meeting, based upon the community's suggestion that the AC continue to work on this Draft. I sent an email to PPML asking for support or opposition to this Draft and received just 2 responses....both in opposition.<div>
<br></div><div>I reiterate that PPML message below and once again ask for your support or opposition. Failing to generate greater support for this Draft and given that the AC has approximately 20 proposals and drafts on its docket.....I plan to make a motion at the next AC monthly meeting recommending abandoning this Draft Policy for lack of community support......</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now is your opportunity to convince the community that this a worthwhile effort....or not.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill Darte</div><div>AC Shepherd for 2014-2</div><div>
<br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Draft Policy Issue:</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Request for feedback:</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">2. If YES above, are there any other qualifications or limits that should be imposed on the resources transferred or the organization?</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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>
</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">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">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>