<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Eddie,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2026/8/6 13:40, Eddie Stauble via
ARIN-PPML wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:047b01dd25ca$b3ab6a80$1b023f80$@sum.net">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Disallowing out of region justification for those with less than a /22 in
region is an issue for anyone with less than a /22, whether they are looking
to get addresses from a broker or private transfer. Not all 8.3 transfers
are through brokers. The original part of this proposal was strictly about
who can use their out of region need for justification, not about how they
were going to get the addresses.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>My original question was not about the impact of the current NRPM
section 9 on brokers versus private transfers. Rather, it was
about that between <i>transfers in general</i> versus <i>the
waiting list.</i> Specifically, I wrote:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">What I am struggling to understand is why
this is a problem only for users of IPv4 brokers and not users of
the <b>IPv4 waiting list.</b> If the same small company wanted to
use the <b>ARIN waiting list</b> instead of purchasing IPv4 space
from you, they would run into the exact same problem.</blockquote>
If the proposal was solely about helping those who do not have a /22
in region, regardless of <b>how they were going to get the
addresses</b> (your words), why are we now restricting the remedy
to only those who use brokers and private transfers, and denying the
remedy to those who use the waiting list? After all, any user of the
ARIN waiting list will experience the exact same problem.
<p></p>
<p>Why does one group deserve the remedy and the other doesn't? I
think this fundamentally grants one group of ARIN members more
privilege than the other. I firmly believe that all ARIN members
should be allowed to do the same thing with their space. The
waiting list is not a special pool those reserved for NRPM
sections 4.4 and 4.10 and shouldn't have special restrictions.</p>
<p>In fact, this latest amendment goes beyond not granting the
remedy to users of the waiting list: it deprives the users of the
waiting list of a justification they were previously able to use,
when they have more than a /22 in region. So really, this is
harming one group of ARIN members to benefit another group.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:047b01dd25ca$b3ab6a80$1b023f80$@sum.net">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">I don't have any ulterior motives in proposing this; I sell an IPv4 block
either way.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I've never suggested that you had any ulterior motives. I merely
wanted to remind you that users of the waiting list experience the
same issue. Your original proposal would help many ARIN members
and I am not opposed to it.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:047b01dd25ca$b3ab6a80$1b023f80$@sum.net">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> I just see the requirement of a /22 for in region use to be
discriminatory against the little guy.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>And I see the new amendment as discriminatory against those
organizations who use the waiting list instead of the "transfer
market", i.e. IP brokers or private transfers. The amendment
forces any ARIN member with a /22 in region who would have
qualified to use the waiting list for space out of region to
either:</p>
<ol>
<li>use a different RIR; or</li>
<li>buy IP space on the transfer market instead, which costs a lot
more than the waiting list that they are currently able to use.</li>
</ol>
<p>If we cared about the little guy, why are we doing this to them?</p>
<p>Remember, anyone who uses the ARIN waiting list <i>is</i> the
little guy in the grand scheme of things. To quote NRPM section
4.1.8:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Organizations which hold more than a /20
equivalent of IPv4 space in aggregate (exclusive of special use
space received under section 4.4 or 4.10) are not eligible to
apply.</blockquote>
</p>
<p>I oppose this amendment to the proposal, and if this amendment is
to be bundled with the original proposal, then I have no choice
but to oppose the whole thing.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br>
Quantum</p>
</body>
</html>