<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)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* 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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@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=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hello,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The wait list is three years long and the justifications are two year projections. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The waitlist is not functioning adequately unless we consider a current needs-test to be worthless.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There is a fundamental issue with needs-testing here. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Does it matter if the needs-tests are accurate at the time of allocation?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I believe need-testing (expensive) transfers are unnecessary and RIPE’s lengthy, broad and deep transfer experiences demonstrates this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We’ve witnessed 10 years without a needs test at the RIR that does the most transfers, and where is the problem?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Leaving that aside, I think our current predicament needs to change. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is unseemly that we are applying out-of-date needs tests while maintaining the requirement for them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That’s the very picture of brainless bureaucracy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I support eliminating access to the waitlist, parceling out any incoming addresses to those on the waitlist, and redirecting any subsequent incoming address space to the 4.10 pool, so number 2 below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I support continuing to work on this proposal and adding a clause dealing with existing waitlist occupants. We got into trouble changing the waitlist rules last time we did to patient waitlist occupants. So also 4 and 5 below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In general, I don’t support any market-distorting elements like “free addresses” impacting the maturing transfer market. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I will be relieved when all the free address pools are completely drained everywhere.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There will always be dribbles of returned or revoked addresses. They don’t have to go into a free pool.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<br>Mike Burns<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>Denis Motova<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 20, 2024 10:28 PM<br><b>To:</b> Gerry E.. George <ggeorge@digisolv.com><br><b>Cc:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello everyone,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I hope you're all well here in the PPML.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'd like to express my gratitude to Gerry George for effectively communicating these policy questions with the community. Thank you for that.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Here are my thoughts:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>1. There is no necessity to revise the policy.<b><u> I believe this policy should be abandoned.</u></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>2. I abstain from commenting on this point as the previous point presents my stance clearly on this matter.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>3. If somehow, this policy was to be implemented (it shouldn’t be), it <b><u>should NOT apply retroactively</u></b>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Similar to Owen's earlier message, <u>I oppose treating current pending users on the waiting list differently from those who completed the grandfathering process under the existing terms</u>. This policy attempts to rectify something that doesn't require correction and is currently functioning adequately.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks again!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Denis<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 20 Jun 2024, at 5:00 AM, Gerry E.. George <<a href="mailto:ggeorge@digisolv.com">ggeorge@digisolv.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'>ARIN Community –</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'>As a co-shepherd on policy 2023-8 (Gerry George & Brian Jones), we are soliciting the community for feedback on this policy proposal following the discussions and opinions expressed at and since ARIN53.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'>They have been distilled into a few main opinions (in no particular order):</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>1. Policy not needed (no change).</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>2. Do away with the Waitlist completely.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>3.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'>Leave the /22 Maximum Allocation unchanged, but introduce a different method or formula of weighting the Waitlist requests </span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1D1C1D;background:#F8F8F8'>to incorporate wait times and allocation size.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1D1C1D;background:#F8F8F8'>4. </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Continue to work on it, and clarify wording.</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>5. If to move forward, MUST address those currently on the Wait List and will they be Grandfathered in? (Fairness)</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'>Questions for the Community:</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black'>a. </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Do we keep working on this policy? (Y/N - #1, #2)</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>b. If yes, should consideration be given for some formula or weighted method towards allocations to queue occupants? (#3, #4)</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>c. If yes, is there a need to add a clause for dealing with existing waitlist occupants? (#4, #5)</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>And if so, how should they be handled? <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Note that if such a clause is determined for inclusion (#5), it will likely apply to ALL currently on the waitlist as at a specific point in time and they ALL would thus be subject to any such clause in the policy, once adopted.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Gerry E. George</span></strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><br>ICT Consultant and Business Solutions Architect;</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Digi</span></strong><em><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Solv</span></b></em><strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>, Inc.</span></strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> [P.O. Box 1677, Castries, Saint Lucia] </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Mobile</span></strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>: (758) 728-4858 /<strong><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Int'l Office</span></strong>: (347) 450-3444<span style='background:white'> / Skype: DigiSolv</span><br><strong><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Email</span></strong>: <a href="mailto:ggeorge@digisolv.com">ggeorge@digisolv.com</a> / <strong><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>LinkedIn</span></strong>: <em><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrygeorge/">https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrygeorge/</a></span></em></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#797979;background:white'><br></span><b><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#557A34;background:white'>Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.</span></i></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>ARIN-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="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>