transfer policy

[jredisch]

Danny,
	I agree that preferential treatment is something that cannot be tolerated.
That is why I am saying that the same justification needs to be checked at
the three month point.  The goal of address allocation should be to only
have a company have to work with the parent registry every three months.
This is even in RFC 2050 in a way by the timeframe address space is to be
allocated.

per rfc 2050
' Additional address allocations will provide enough address space
       to enable the ISP to assign addresses for three months
       without requesting additional address space from its parent
       registry.  '

Before you respond I know that this does not say anything about transfers.
I am mentioning it because the goal of the RFC and the registry was not to
unduly burden the ISP's and the registry by having them work together every
month on allocation issues.  The current system could have an ISP get a
transfer one month and come back a month later for an allocation request.
If anything is unfair it would be making ISP's have to dedicated more
resources to IP related issues.  If we could identify a method of allowing
ISP's to combine the transfer justification and their next allocation I feel
that would be more fair than the current solution.

I realize that identifying ISP's with a history is a rathole discussion.  I
have a few ideas that might work, but only want to start that discussion if
people feel that the resources saved is worth the added complexity of the
policy.

-Jason






-----Original Message-----
From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
Of Danny McPherson
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:29 PM
To: policy at arin.net
Subject: Re: transfer policy



The problem with what you suggest it that it clearly
requires ARIN to provide preferential treatment to
some subset of it's customers.

I for one don't believe that's something ARIN wants
to do.

-danny

> 	 The problem I see is that entities with no history are running through a
> transfer process that needs to be tightened overall.  This will have a
cost
> impact in time and resources on both the 'customers' of ARIN and on ARIN
> resources.  I would much rather see the ARIN resources dedicated to
> preventing actions being taken by groups that may never deal with ARIN
again
> vs. entities that I trust.  I am defining 'trust' as someone who will have
> to come back in the next few months anyway.  This can be documented and
> built into a policy.  We have different fees and policies for ISP's vs.
end
> users anyway so I do not think this change is any more unequal.  It is
based
> on the fact that while all people who deal with ARIN have similar needs in
> that they require IP addresses, there are in fact a very diverse group of
> entities in the memebrship.  It is fair to treat the organizations
> differently time wise as long as they all have to meet the same criteria
in
> the end in my opinion.
>