That's a very fair counterargument. I'm just not happy about the processing time right now. It's impeding fast growing business.
David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:49 PM To: David Huberman Cc: [email protected] List ([email protected]) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Team Review - policy matter? (was: Re: reverse COE statement) With all due respect, David, expediting transfers by exempting them from the same scrutiny as free pool allocations is, IMHO, contrary to the good of the community. Owen On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: > Owen, > > I understand what you're saying, and I think I agree. I don't understand why > John is saying 'submit a template? because I agree with you that it isn't at > all a policy matter. > > But I'm against the idea *right now*, only because team review today has ARIN > hat 4-5 business day turnarounds for each iteration of a ticket. That means, > realistically, 6 days with a weekend, so it's about 1 response per week. > Leslie warned us at PPMs that this would happen, but as someone suffering > through it, it's not a good situation. > > If ARIN fixes the turnaround time, then I'd fully support team review for 8.3 > transfers. > > David > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Principal, Global IP Addressing > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:04 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Team Review - policy matter? (was: Re: > reverse COE statement) > > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
