On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2013, at 5:38 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To be clear, ARIN sent the following text (as quoted by Frank) to the > To provide some insight, however, organizations often reference > NRPM (and assert compliance with the policy therein) when their > interpretation is different from that of the staff implementation. > > While staff tries to be true to the language (and the spirit) of > number resource policy as adopted, diligent requesters who have > a credible claim of compliance to NRPM are approved. > WHOA. That's a thorny issue. What you are saying is that staff have an interpretation of policy, and will tell an applicant _no_, they are not eligible to receive the resource X, according to the staff interpretation. BUT, some requestors can choose their own interpretation, without past and future requestors having the benefit of having their request interpreted to comply in that way? This seems like inequal treatment. The problem, is this is application of different rules to different requestors, and unfairly favorable treatment to requestors who can hire a large team of analysts to put together an alternative interpretation favoring the granting of their request. What should instead happen, is ARIN should consult with the community first, before accepting an "alternative credible interpretation," AND inform past applicants who may have had requests denied, that a new interpretation is being accepted, without any change in policy. > Thanks! > /John > -- -JH
_______________________________________________ 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.
