On Sep 24, 2014, at 2:03 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 24, 2014, at 4:33 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. > > David - > > I do not believe that it is a policy matter - Owen suggested that > it was implied by NRPM 8.3 policy language (which provides that > the recipient and resources must meet ARIN's current policies.). > I pointed out that the policy would have to be must clearer to hold > the meaning he intends and note the option of a policy proposal. > > ARIN's IPv4 Countdown Plan is quite similar to the serialization > and review of requests that APNIC and RIPE performed as part of > their IPv4 pool runout plans, and originated in order to provide > for fair treatment of requests from the free pool as we approach > runout. Team review of requests (where the entire analyst staff > gathers to process the request queue) is not efficient, but does > provide benefits for serialization in processing of requests. It > is unclear how that would be at all beneficial for IPv4 transfers > and it definitely would impact IPv4 transfer processing times.
I doubt it would be beneficial to transfers. However, I don’t think it is fair for transfers to be expedited and handled faster than free pool requests. I believe it is a fairness issue, not an efficiency issue. 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.
