<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I weep for my once-pristine Section 8, now increasingly sullied by walls of text, mostly unnecessary.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A complete waste of time as the value of these resources compels more efficient use than this tired artifact language ever did…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So it seems that ARIN will look individually at MDNs, allow them individually to justify transfers, but will impose an Organization-wide cap on using 8.5.7 at a /16 equivalent. If I understand it correctly, I suppose there are some Orgs who would find it easier to justify a transfer when they have MDNs with high utilization levels, but who otherwise can’t meet the 80% threshold as an Organization (or by inference the 50% threshold of 8.5.5). One wonders why they don’t transfer some of their organizationally-unused addresses to their MDNs. I realize 8.5.7 is fractionally easier than 8.5 to process, but still I see this as another seldom-utilized policy and more NRPM clutter. I particularly don’t like the callback to section 4, maybe MDNs should be defined in section 2 instead?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Mike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net> <b>On Behalf Of </b>ARIN<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 17, 2022 8:45 AM<br><b>To:</b> PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net><br><b>Subject:</b> [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The following Draft Policy has been revised:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>* ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Revised text is below and can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_1/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_1/</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>* Technically Sound<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>* Supported by the Community<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The PDP can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sean Hopkins<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Senior Policy Analyst<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Draft Policy ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Problem Statement:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The requirements for transfers involving companies operating multiple discrete networks under section 8.5 of the NRPM are unclear and need clarification.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Policy Statement:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Replace the first paragraph of Section 8.5.7 with the following:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Organizations may qualify for additional IPv4 address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently allocated space. In organizations operating multiple discrete networks, each discrete network may be assessed individually for the 80% utilization threshold. To qualify under this policy, the organization must provide justification that each network is discrete, per the criteria described in section 4.5. Each discrete network must meet the projection requirements in section 8.5.5, and each discrete network for which IP addresses are requested must meet the utilization requirements in section 8.5.6. Organizations may receive one or more transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings, up to a maximum size of /16.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Comments: None<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Timetable for implementation: Any<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>