<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/26/2014 4:33 PM, Matthew Petach
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEmG1=q2FjcW7KUnnijKVSXaUveN1WvWwBJxDBGdbLQTP3TJKg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John
Springer <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:springer@inlandnet.com" target="_blank">springer@inlandnet.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi John,<br>
<br>
Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please
allow me to address the points you offer inline.<span
class=""><br>
<br>
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Oppose 2014-14<br>
<br>
1) /16 is not "small"<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
This has actually been mentioned before, by several
commentators. The problem with "big" and "not "small"" is
that they require reference to a datum, which WRT to
2014-14 has not been provided. Owen Delong provided a fair
attempt to come to grips with what big or small actually
mean as percentages of the number and size of transfers
that have occured since the STLS policy was adopted in
2009, here:<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Hi John,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I think it might help if we use the terms<br>
</div>
<div>XX-Small, X-Small, Small, etc. as defined<br>
by ARIN themselves at<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html">https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>This might help eliminate confusion, and allow<br>
for some flexibility going forward; if we instead<br>
of hard-coding a specific size, instead tie it to<br>
the fee schedule, and say "only entities that<br>
</div>
<div>currently fall into the "Small" and below category<br>
</div>
<div>of the ARIN fee schedule (ie cumulative /18 or<br>
less of total IPv4 holdings as of the 2013 fee<br>
schedule) may obtain a single transfer allocation<br>
of size not to exceed the largest allowed for an<br>
XX-Small organization (which, as of the 2013<br>
</div>
<div>fee schedule would mean a /22 or smaller)."<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Or perhaps keep it supremely simple:<br>
</div>
<div>"Any org-ID may obtain one transfer allocation<br>
</div>
<div>of size not to exceed the largest allocation <br>
</div>
<div>within the XX-Small category (currently a /22,<br>
</div>
<div>as of the 2013 fee schedule) per year without<br>
</div>
<div>requiring needs justification."<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>That way, as our concept of ISP size shifts<br>
and changes over time, so too does the<br>
</div>
<div>maximum needs-free allocation size.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.
The fees and its categories are under the control of the board;
number policy is under control of the Internet community via the
PDP. I believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not
cause changes with number policy.<br>
<br>
Andrew <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>