Owen, I was surprised that transfer are approved on a two year future looking business case that is not necessarily supported by a current 1 year utilization that is half as large. This is the reason for my starting the thread "ARIN-2014-20 and current future looking needs assessment"
Like you, it seemed to me that IPv4 transfers are subject to the same policies as IPv4 free pool allocations (and I would expect assignments as well). I am not sure this necessarily needs to be the case. For example I don't think transfer requests need to be processed in series. With depletion occurring, and heightened concern for efficient utilization I would think team review would be desirable for transfers. I am however less concerned about team review of transfers than I am of having a direct allocations limited to 25% of the previous year's run rate, and transfers not limited to 200% of the previous year's run rate. ___Jason On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2014, at 10:23 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Team review is not called for in policy; > >> > >> I completely disagree. There are a number of reasons that the community > tied 8.3 transfers to "current IPv4 policy" and other than the timeframe > exemption specifically granted in 8.3, I believe that fairness dictates > that ARIN should treat transfers in an identical manner to free pool > allocations and assignments. > > > > Owen - > > > > If you feel that transfers should be subject to team review (despite > > the fact that they do not draw from the ARIN region IPv4 free pool) and > > consider it to be a policy matter, I would recommend the submission of > > a policy proposal which introduces the concept of "team review" for > > requests to the Number Resource Policy Manual. It presently is not > > contained therein. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > ARIN > > > > I disagree. While it is not specifically called out, the simple fact is > that 8.3 transfer policy specifically states that IPv4 transfers should be > subject to the same policies as IPv4 free pool allocations. It does make an > exception for the "speculation timeframe" allowed in the request, but > otherwise I believe that the community's expectation is that they are > treated the same and subject to the same policies and limitations. > > How do other members of the community feel about this? > > 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. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ 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.
