Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater. Best,
-M< On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to > >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call: > >> > >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria > for > >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers > >> > >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria > >> > >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional > IPv4 > >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently > >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more > >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address > holdings, > >> with a maximum size of /16. > >> > >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in > >> any 6 month period. > > > > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears > > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this > > policy. "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in > > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only > > have assignments. Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to > > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here > > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without > > assignments or vice versa). Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to > > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar. (Or "transferred, > > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.) > > > > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or > > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would > > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7. > > > > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers. > > > > — Brett > > I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words “or > assigned” added > to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be > an > appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this > regard, it > is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the > upcoming > AC meeting, nothing more. > > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
