Thank you John. I reiterate my last post. The criterion is obsolete and this recommended draft policy should proceed through PDP.
> On May 12, 2016, at 6:37 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On May 12, 2016, at 5:56 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> 1) how many 8.3 transfers have been approved as of 30 April 2016? > > Do you mean transfers since IPv4 transfer policy inception, or simply in 2015? > (They are all listed here: > https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/transfers.html) > >> 2) of those, how many were reviewed and verified with the explicit >> requirement that 25% of the requested space to be transferred-in would be >> used immediately? > > Such a requirement could only be applicable transfers to end-users who were > demonstrating > their 24-month need using NRPM 4.3.3, and there is no clear interpretation > for application of > the "25% immediate utilization rate” language. As such, it is not directly > considered during > the process (as elaborated by Richard Jimmerson on the list); therefore none > were “reviewed > and verified explicitly” for that purpose. > > Note that the language remains applicable (and organizations that attempt to > transfer without > having immediate utilization do run the risk of number resource fraud), but > is not integrated > into the end-user transfer review process as its extrapolation into that > context is unclear. > This is also why the staff and legal review for draft policy 2015-3 notes - > "This policy would > more closely align with the way staff applies the existing policy in relation > to 8.3 transfers.” > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN >
_______________________________________________ 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.
