On Jun 5, 2013, at 7:51 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The word "need" gets mixed up with these other things, that are >> artificial constructions and don't have to do with need -- as I >> understand, the transfer policies are interpreted in a capricious and >> biased way -- in other words, ARIN staff imagine that there are >> extra restrictions or constraints that are allowed to be imposed, >> besides demonstration of need. >> >> For example: that a transfer recipient requesting a /24 has had to >> have justified a /20 first. > > Jimmy - > > I'll have to disagree with your characterization "capricious and > bias" interpretation of policy, but will concur that the NRPM 8.3 > transfer policy, by its nature of requiring qualification under > "under current ARIN policies" (only with a longer time window), > can be difficult to administer under some circumstances. > > The example you cite (having to meet the ISP minimum allocation > size) is indeed one such result, and there are others. ARIN staff > work to bring issues such as these to the community through the > Policy Experience report given at each Public Policy Meeting, > as well as on this mailing list, so that the community can > consider whether a change to policy is warranted as a result. > (e.g. the implications of the current policy language and > resulting minimum was discussed on this list on 16 April 2013, > and it is possible for anyone in the community to submit a > policy proposal to change it if they feel it is an issue.)
And I (and likely a number of other AC members) would be happy to help if you are interested. -Scott _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
