I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of the ARIN community.
Owen > On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >> Transfers and Multi-national Networks > > I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be > utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are > being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they > are "utilized". Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running > VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is > utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host > in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just > temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly > reasonable. > > Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work > around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to > record transfers. > > Matthew Kaufman > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > 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.
