From the ARIN 33 meeting notes: "At the end of discussion, the moderator asked for the following straw poll (remote participants were invited to participate). Poll results were provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations. Straw poll for/against continuing work on the proposal: - Total attendees/remote participants: 103 - In favor: 36 - Against: 2 "
The participating members of this community spoke widely in favor of working on this. Abandoning this seems contrary to the explicit wishes of the community's participants David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 12:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2014-2 Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language Should we abandon this Draft? After the Chicago Public Policy Meeting, based upon the community's suggestion that the AC continue to work on this Draft. I sent an email to PPML asking for support or opposition to this Draft and received just 2 responses....both in opposition. I reiterate that PPML message below and once again ask for your support or opposition. Failing to generate greater support for this Draft and given that the AC has approximately 20 proposals and drafts on its docket.....I plan to make a motion at the next AC monthly meeting recommending abandoning this Draft Policy for lack of community support...... Now is your opportunity to convince the community that this a worthwhile effort....or not. Thanks, Bill Darte AC Shepherd for 2014-2 Draft Policy Issue: Simply, the author wishes the Anti-Flip language currently used in the NRPM to be relaxed, allowing an Inter-RIR transfer within their own organization of previously existing addresses....though they may have received a new allocation or assignment within the last 12 months. Current draft language states that the organization may do such a transfer, but may not use the actual addresses which were received from ARIN (or through transfer) in the previous 12 months. But they could therefore transfer other resources holdings. Request for feedback: In order to further this discussion and gain a consensus, I would like to once again ask the community to speak in favor or against this Draft Policy so that it may be presented and discussed at our next Public Policy Consultation at NANOG in June. 1. Yes or No. Should the community relax existing policy which attempts to limit the transfer of ARIN resources out of region, in order to allow an organization flexibility to move address blocks to another portion of their own organization in another region, even though they might have received different addresses within ARIN in the last 12 months? (Note current policy would still restrict availability of new addresses to the organization for a period of 12 months after the transfer and is not being changed by this draft). 2. If YES above, are there any other qualifications or limits that should be imposed on the resources transferred or the organization? (Note that a vote of NO to question #1 would essentially ask the Advisory Council to abandon this draft policy leaving existing policy in place.) Thanks to all who continue to work within the community to exercise their right and duty to craft appropriate policy guiding ARIN's important role in Internet number resource management. _______________________________________________ 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.
