I do find it interesting, Steven, that with all you have complained about “arbitrary policy” on this list, you have yet to submit a single proposal to change that policy.
Given that the policy was developed through community consensus of those that chose to participate here on this very list and at ARIN public policy meetings (in person or remotely), how can you call it “arbitrary”? If you’d like help writing a proposal to get the policy you want, I am happy to help you. While I don’t agree with you, I still consider it part of my job as an elected member of the AC* to assist you in any way that I can to get your ideas for improving ARIN policy in front of the community. Owen * I say this only as my own opinion. While I express my belief about my job as an AC member, I am not expressing any official opinion of the ARIN AC or on behalf of ARIN or the AC in any way. I do not know to what extent the AC as a body or my fellow AC members would agree with my statement. On Apr 4, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote: > We are a tiny org with a tiny network in relation to say a fortune 1000 > company. We should never be approved for a /8 or a /16 or some resource that > is way larger than we are. > > We should however, be approved for resources that match our size. I think we > are the ones who should determine if we need resources and not some arbitrary > policy that ARIN tries to comply with. ARINs job should only be to get us > resources that matches our size and record it in the public database. That > is ARINs Mission. > > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 5:13 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: Morizot Timothy S; David Huberman; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the >> minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a >> /22. Always! >> >> If an org wants larger than a /22 they need to be able to demonstrate in a >> reasonable way that they are a larger org with a network size that justifies >> a larger allocation. > > > Which is what is meant by "needs based" allocation if I am not mistaken. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
