On Mar 9, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Matthew Petach <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Bill Darte <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ... 3. Take an alternative tack and simply restrict transfers on a per-block rather than a per-organization basis. e.g. 'No block acquired within the past 24 months would be eligible for transfer.' (The time frame is of course an arbitrary number at this point.) I support option #3. I'm curious if it would be better to reference time periods from other sections of the NRPM, rather than hard-coding a specific term here? IE, if we limit transfer requests to a 24-month supply, then tie the anti-transfer period to be the same duration as the supply length, so that if we extend or contract the supply length for transfers, this anti-flip language inherits the same change. This doesn't affect my support for option #3, I'm just looking to see if there's ways we can limit the potential for the NRPM getting 'out of sync' with itself in the future, if we change one section but don't catch all the related sections like this. Matt - It is possible to reference time periods from other policy sections of the NRPM, or define such periods upfront in the definitions section and reference them later, as the community prefers. Either approach should reduce possibility of mismatch occurring as the result of future changes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
_______________________________________________ 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.
