Member of the AC hat on (though not speaking on behalf of the AC): If this proposal gains traction and 2014-13 is adopted, the AC and the community can make the necessary adjustments to it in light of 2014-13 if 2014-13 is adopted.
Changing 2014-13 so substantially at this time would only serve to delay its potential implementation without actually benefiting this proposal. If such a range is desired to go with this proposal, the necessary changes can be added to this proposal without significant difficulty. AC hat off -- Speaking only as myself and a member of the community at large: I fail to see the logic in establishing a "minimum range". A minimum is just that... A minimum. Anything larger than the minimum is not the minimum, so a minimum range is a minimum and some other numbers that happen to be larger than the minimum. Even if 2014-13 were somehow modified and we were able to work past the lexical cognitive dissonance inherent in the idea of a "minimum range", I don't see how this proposal would work without significant modification to deal with the issue of how a request is mapped to a particular "minimum" within the "minimum range" that applies by as yet unspecified criteria. Perhaps if you could clarify how you see this idea of a "minimum range" working and how it could actually be implemented or what it is you hope having such a thing would provide that the existing policy and/or 2014-13 does not provide, it would be helpful. Owen On Jul 13, 2014, at 10:39 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote: > Its more complicated than that. I’ve submitted the proposed policy change > below to the AC. Obviously at this early stage I don’t know if the Community > will accept this or not but 2014-13 complicates this proposal. That is part > of the reason why I suggested changing 2014-13 to specify a range rather than > a fixed allocation. I would be fine with having this proposal included with > 2014-13 if the AC though that made sense. Otherwise it can remain separate. > > > TEMPLATE: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments > > 2. Proposal Originator > a. name: Steven Ryerse > b. email: [email protected] > c. telephone: 770.656.1460 (c) 770.399.9099 (w) > d. organization: Eclipse Networks Inc. > > 3. Date: 06-JUN-2014 > > 4. Problem Statement: > > New and small organizations are having a difficult time receiving > resource allocations from ARIN because of the economic, administrative > and time burdens of making their way through ARIN's needs testing > process. For small allocations, the burdens of needs testing may > exceed the value of the resources, or may deter small, less > well-funded organizations' ability to receive an allocation from ARIN. > As ARIN was created to provide Internet resources to ALL organizations > within its geographic territory, this disparity in the Policy Manual > needs to be addressed. The problem can be remedied by removing needs > testing for any organization that applies to receive the current > minimum block size allocation. > > > 5. Policy statement: > > "A Minimum IP allocation size(s) has been defined per Section 4 of > the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual. Regardless of any policy > requirement(s) defined in any other active Section of the Policy > Manual, all organizations may apply and shall automatically qualify > for the current Minimum IP Block Allocation upon completing the > normal administrative application process and fee requirements, and > all organizations shall be eligible for such an allocation once > every 12 months. Where this is in conflict with any other Section > in the Policy Manual, this Section shall be controlling." > > > 6. Comments: > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate > b. Anything else: > > > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > www.eclipse-networks.com > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > From: John Curran [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:47 AM > To: Kevin Blumberg > Cc: Steven Ryerse; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13 > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Steven, > > I’ve double checked with staff and this proposal will not make allocations or > assignments larger than /24 more difficult than today. > > In the revised section 4.2.1.5 Minimum allocation the text allows for /24 and > larger prefixes, it isn’t limited to only a /24. > > Correct. An updated staff assessment is forthcoming which adds the sentence: > > "If implemented, staff would continue using these well established criteria > and > guidelines for initial requests larger than /24." > > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
