With my community member and author hats on. And in attempt to start this 
conversation before the formal meeting starts on Thursday. 

> On Oct 15, 2016, at 22:16, Alexander, Daniel <daniel_alexan...@comcast.com> 
> wrote:
> Related proposals:
> ARIN 2015-7 Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers
> ARIN 2016-3 Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 
> Transfers
> ARIN 2016-4 Transfers for New Entrants
> ARIN 2016-5 Post IPv4 Free Pool Depletion Transfer Policy
> Needed feedback:
> - Is it useful to break the dependency between section 4 and section 8?

Yes, I believe that the rules that were developed for managing the free pool 
are not as applicable when IPv4 number resources are being transferred in the 
marketplace. Simplifying the transfer requirements by breaking the linkage to 
section 4, I think is the best path forward. 

> - Is it useful to simplify the transfer requirements?

Yes, I believe simpler rules would benefit the community by providing 
additional clarity on transfers and also can provide better predictability for 
organizations which decide to purchase IPv4 number rights. 

> - Are the needs requirements in any of the proposals too lax, or too 
> restrictive?
> - Do people prefer one approach over another? Which ones?

As the author of 2016-5, I believe this policy provides the best path forward. 

I also support the ideas in 2015-7, but I believe further work would still be 
needed if this policy was the only change. 

I don't support 2016-3 as this policy does not deal with the clarity needed for 
the largest transfers. 

2016-4 is complementary and overlapping change to 2016-5 and thus I support 
that change, although I believe the larger change of 2016-5 is preferable. 


You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Reply via email to