<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I don't think anyone is blaming the organizations that stood in
the queue for doing anything wrong for "loosing" the resources
that could have been assigned to them. They didn't loose because
they never ended up having it. As most have been saying meeting
all requirements at the time and standing in line was never a
guarantee the resources would be allocated.<br>
</p>
<p>Fact is that things changed and they changed not to harm these
organization but due to a natural thing, partially related to IPv4
exhaustion which has no solution inside the IPv4 world. Policy
might change in the future again and may impact other
organizations at that point in time.</p>
<p>I think there it no much point to find who to blame in this
context, otherwise we could also ask if those that in end of 2020
keep refusing to deploy IPv6 are creating growing issues for those
who have done it already or not.</p>
<p>This proposal seems to have been custom made for very specific
case and not to answer the needs of majority of members, and as
such I oppose it as well.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/11/2020 11:16,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:alpine.LRH.2.21.2011020911390.9413@bigone.uneedus.com">But
is not the real unfairness issue being able to receive more space
from the list than those that apply now?
<br>
<br>
That is the issue I have a problem with. Along with the fact that
without free pools, there is little to give out in the first
place.
<br>
<br>
Albert Erdmann
<br>
Network Administrator
<br>
Paradise On Line Inc.
<br>
<br>
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
It's the time spent on the list. I waited 11 months on the list
before getting my allocation. Most of the organizations
affected are likely to have spent
<br>
significant time on the list (unfortunately I do not have the
exact data on time spent waiting for affected orgs). Spending
time waiting, then get put to
<br>
the back of the line so to speak and have to do it again, that's
the issue. That was time wasted that could've been spent making
other arrangements, hence
<br>
they were penalized.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jason
<br>
<br>
Brandt
<br>
<br>
Senior Systems Engineer
<br>
Pearl Companies
<br>
|
<br>
1200 E Glen Ave
<br>
<br>
Peoria Heights
<br>
,
<br>
IL
<br>
<br>
61616
<br>
P:
<br>
309.679.0184
<br>
<br>
F:
<br>
309.688.5444
<br>
<br>
E:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jason.brandt@pearlcompanies.com">jason.brandt@pearlcompanies.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.pearlcompanies.com">www.pearlcompanies.com</a> | Insurance ‑ Technology ‑ Automotive
<br>
<br>
PEARL COMPANIES CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including
attachments, is for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
contain proprietary,
<br>
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or
distribution or the taking of any action in
<br>
reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this
<br>
communication and destroy all copies [v1.0.002].
<br>
<br>
From: Martin Hannigan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com"><hannigan@gmail.com></a>
<br>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 07:50
<br>
To: Brandt, Jason <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jason.brandt@pearlcompanies.com"><jason.brandt@pearlcompanies.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is
<br>
safe.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"><arin-ppml@arin.net></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this
is "special benefits".
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities
changes create. Governments do it and business does it. To some
extent, the could be called
<br>
"special benefits". However, the context of that is different,
some feel the benefits create an inequity rather than resolve
one.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Organizations went through the approved process to get on
the wait list to *possibly* be assigned an address block. The
policy on allocations
<br>
was changed, however the organizations did everything by
the book per previous policy. The organization is now told that
they have to go through
<br>
the process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do
with potential space allocation. I am all for limiting the
allocation amount in the
<br>
future. However, to penalize an organization that has
followed the process to this point is unfair. This also is no
guarantee that these
<br>
organizations will receive an allocation. More likely,
they'll continue to wait.
<br>
<br>
This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations
that went through the proper process of what was approved policy
at the time. A
<br>
similar scenario would be arresting someone who has broken
a law, prior to the offense becoming law.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that
grandfathering addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on
the list and getting nothing?
<br>
There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as
far as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it
in itself requires any
<br>
special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting minutes
correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with
much at all.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I continue to support this policy, not because I agree
that larger requests should be granted, but because the
organizations had followed the
<br>
approved process and policies.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't
seen strong arguments one way or the other.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fair enough. Thank you.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Warm regards,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-M<
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>