I think the threshold is "unnecessarily difficult" rather than "too difficult".
If we didn't have NRPM section 4 already, and had to set up rules for needs assessment for transfers, I think we would end up with something a lot closer to this draft policy than to the current section 4. If so, that would indicate that all the extra requirements in section 4 are probably no longer serving a useful function, and just making transfer recipients' life unnecessarily difficult. -Scott On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Azinger, Marla <[email protected]> wrote: > I’ve seen it from all sizes. I don’t see an issue. If a large quantity > of people stand up and say they struggle. I’ll be surprised. And the > assumption its easier for larger entities than smaller is very off base. > I’ve managed a variety of entity sizes and there are different variables at > all levels that really create a level playing field. > > > > And not everyone has the same contracts. I’ve seen a variety and in those > varieties there can also be contingencies. > > > > That said, if the majority of people stand up and say it’s too difficult. > Then so be it. > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > > > > > *From:* Scott Leibrand [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 12:29 PM > *To:* Azinger, Marla <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Rob Seastrom <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > > > > Reducing the burden on ARIN staff is not part of the problem statement for > this proposal (though it might be a side effect, depending on how they > implement it). The main goal here is to reduce the administrative burden > on organizations who need to acquire IPv4 space via transfer. That burden > may actually be higher for smaller entities who don't have experience with > and processes in place for jumping through ARIN's hoops. > > > > I don't think this policy would have much impact on the ability of large > well-funded entities to purchase as much address space as they like. > Currently, those organizations simply write a contract that gives them full > rights to the address space they're buying, and allows them to transfer the > space with ARIN whenever they are ready to put it into use on their network > (or can otherwise pass ARIN's needs justification tests). > > > > -Scott > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Azinger, Marla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Does ARIN staff feel this is needed to support how they asses transfers? > > Right now I don't support this proposal. Based on experience I don't see > a problem. > > Additionally this could have a side effect of letting larger money endowed > entities to purchase more address space faster and deplete the chances > smaller entities had on the market. This would shorten the life span of > the v4 market. > > Regards > Marla Azinger > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Rob Seastrom > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7 > > Dear Colleagues, > > It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted. Anyone have > thoughts on "Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 > transfers"? > > The AC would love your input. > > Draft policy text follows: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > Problem statement: > > ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need > requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section > was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more > complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN staff > applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 transfer > requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much more > difficult to assess to the same level of detail. > > This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment process > for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case > requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. > > Policy statement: > > 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the > requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of > their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an > operational network within 24 months. > > Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead > demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section > 4 of the NRPM. > > Comments: > > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > b. Anything else > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > ________________________________ > > This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email > on the basis of the terms set out at > http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
