<div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small">Apologies in advance for jumping in at the last minute on a policy that's in recommended form, but I have a few questions and observations. <br></span><div dir="ltr"><br><div style="font-family:'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><span style="line-height:1.5">1) The problem statement says:</span><br></div><div style="font-family:'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,sans-serif">> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start actually using the addresses.</div></div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><font color="#212121" face="helvetica neue, helvetica, arial, sans-serif"><br></font>Earlier on, Jason says: <br><div>> "I know I worked very hard to get my recent end-user assignment <span style="line-height:1.5">over 25% by the deadline."<br><br></span></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,sans-serif">It is my understanding, Jason, that you're a proponent of some form of verification with teeth - presumably something more aggressive than the 1 year/50% that would still be included if 2015-3 passes muster, but you also concede that you had a difficult time meeting the current 30 day "deadline." <br><br>I could be completely off base because I haven't been following 2015-3 since its inception, but has there been any discussion of a test that sits somewhere between 25%/30 days and 50%/1 year? </div><div style="font-family:'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><br>2) It seems 4.3.3 in its current incarnation<span> </span><i>doesn't have teeth to begin with </i>as it applies to transfers (which are really the only option in a post-depletion world.) <span style="line-height:1.5">John Curran says: </span><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Such a requirement could only be applicable transfers to end-users who were demonstrating <span style="line-height:1.5">their 24-month need using NRPM 4.3.3, and</span><span style="line-height:1.5"> </span><b style="line-height:1.5">there is no clear interpretation for application of </b><b style="line-height:1.5">the "25% immediate utilization rate” language</b><span style="line-height:1.5">. As such, it is not directly considered during </span><span style="line-height:1.5">the process (as elaborated by Richard Jimmerson on the list); therefore none were “reviewed </span><span style="line-height:1.5">and verified explicitly” for that purpose.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Note that the language remains applicable (and organizations that attempt to transfer without <span style="line-height:1.5">having immediate utilization do run the risk of number resource fraud), but is not integrated </span><span style="line-height:1.5">into the end-user transfer review process as its extrapolation into that context is unclear. </span><b style="line-height:1.5">This is also why the staff and legal review for draft policy 2015-3 notes - "This policy would </b><b style="line-height:1.5">more closely align with the way staff applies the existing policy in relation to 8.3 transfers.”</b></div></blockquote></div><font face="helvetica neue, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" color="#212121" style="line-height:1.5"><br>[emphasis my own] <br></font><br><font face="helvetica neue, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" color="#212121" style="line-height:1.5">My understanding from these comments is that ARIN has not been doing 30 day check ups on transfers because </font><i style="line-height:1.5">staff has not received direction on how to apply the existing policy to transfers,<span> </span></i><span style="line-height:1.5">which would be the reason behind the staff assessment, "</span><span style="line-height:1.5">This policy would more closely align with the way staff applies<span> </span></span><span style="line-height:1.5">existing </span><span style="line-height:1.5">policy." To that end,</span> then, the policy in its current incarnation is not completely obsolete as some folks have claimed on the PPML. Staff simply don't have direction for application of the utilization rates. <span style="line-height:1.5"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:'helvetica neue',helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><span style="line-height:1.5"><br></span><div><span style="line-height:1.5">It seems there needs to be clearer consensus around what the action of ARIN staff ought to be a) in pursuing verification in the first place re: transfers and b) in cases where verification tests aren't met. </span>Should ARIN be automatically checking in at the 30 day or 1 year mark? If so, what does ARIN do if the 25%/30 days or 50%/1year tests aren't met? <span style="line-height:1.5">Should ARIN revoke the address space? Serve the offender notice? Are either of these ethical in a post-depletion world where folks have paid for address space?</span></div><div><span style="line-height:1.5"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height:1.5">If the community is to give direction in these areas, should it be included in 2015-3, or in a separate problem statement? <br><br>Feel free to set me straight on all of this 'cause I'm a giant nooooob. </span></div></div>- Alyssa </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:19 PM John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
On May 13, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
I am highly confused now.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We have the 25% utilization check which really is the only verifiable </div>
<div>check to rate-limit aggressively optimistic requests.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On one hand, ARIN does not check this figure. As such the policy </div>
<div>change is a no-op.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the other hand the 25% utilization goal remains part of the </div>
<div>policy and having no intention of complying is fraud.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ARIN could make random checks, or check all of them.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite">...</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jason - </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Are you referring to assignments or transfers? The above discussion</div>
<div> appears to mix requests of both types.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> ARIN does check that end-user _assignment_ requests meet the</div>
<div> 25% immediate utilization requirement (as called for in the end-user </div>
<div> assignment policy.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> ARIN does not have clear guidance how the assignment criteria for</div>
<div> 25% immediate use is to be applied to transfers. ARIN can apply the </div>
<div> criteria with respect to transfer requests, but that would require some </div>
<div> additional policy clarity from the community to do so. </div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div>So in that respect the policy change is not a no-op.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
The policy change will not materially affected transfer requests, as noted</div>
<div> above. The change would effect processing of any end-user assignments</div>
<div> requests. (It is probably worth noting that end-users who presently qualify</div>
<div> for assignment of an IPv4 block are being added to a waiting list with a </div>
<div> rather low probability of timely fulfillment.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" 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.</blockquote></div></div>