There isn’t. But like many things in the world, sometimes it’s just easier to hire a professional. I know many small organizations that have read the NRPM and applied successfully for various size allocations and/or assignments.
Your statement, to me, sounds like “If you need to hire a lawyer to form your corporation, then something is very wrong with the law” or “If you need to hire a mechanic to fix your car, then something is very wrong with the design of your car.” As a general rule, virtually anything you do in business can be done by amateurs, but is usually faster and easier if you involve professionals. Owen On Jun 4, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote: > No offense, but there should not be a need for any organization to have to > hire a consult to try and get the Minimum size allocation. If you need a > consultant for that then something is very wrong with the policies! > > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > www.eclipse-networks.com > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:14 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: Matthew Kaufman; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers > > > On Jun 4, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> There are several folks (like me) who want to ditch the needs test and there >> are several folks who don't want to ditch them. I take it your position is >> that the folks who want to keep needs tests should somehow prevail in this >> argument without much or any change, and those of us who wish to ditch them >> should just accept the status quo with needs tests. In other words you win >> and we lose! > > Not necessarily. I’m open for a good debate of the issue on the merits of the > proposal. I’ve attempted to stick to that. > >> I saw a lot of folks comment here recently who want to at least loosen needs >> tests on the smaller block sizes, many many more than I've ever seen before. >> Since it is obvious a sizable portion of this community desires a change >> toward loosening policies, why is it that you persist in standing in the way >> of compromise? > > I have not stood in the way of compromise and could not do so even if I > wanted to. I am only one of 15 votes on the AC. You only need ten of them to > get a policy proposal sent to the board. It is, however, equally obvious that > a sizable portion of the community, not merely myself, does not want to > eliminate the needs test. Currently, there is no actual proposal on the table > for loosening them or compromising. If there were one, I would address the > merits of it as I saw them. > >> There comes a time when fair is fair - and small organizations are routinely >> discriminated against because of our small size and not so deep pockets. >> There is a lot of anger out there over the unfairness of these existing >> policies. It should be just as easy for us to get resources as it was for >> T-Mobile and others. I call on all members of this community to at least >> come to a compromise. After all the world hasn't ended for RIPE with their >> changes - and it won't end here either if fairness is put back into the >> policies so that small organizations can get the resources they need too! > > Given the number of sole-proprietors with very small budgets that I have > obtained IP allocations for over the past several years, I think this is an > inaccurate characterization of the facts at hand. Indeed, if you look at my > posting history and my voting history throughout my tenure on the AC, you > will find that I am one of the biggest advocates that the small organization > could find. > > It is just as easy (if not easier) for small organizations to get resources > as large ones. (I know this full well because I have applied for resources > for virtually every size category in the ARIN fee table). > > If you are having trouble with a particular application, feel free to contact > me off-line with the details. I may be able to help you navigate the ARIN > process more effectively. We have, by the way, been making steady progress on > loosening the restrictions on needs basis. There used to be no ability to get > anything smaller than a /20 from ARIN for conventional uses at one time. > Today, that’s down to a /24 and there is progress being made on making that > possible without multihoming. > > Owen > _______________________________________________ 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.
